Gender differences in retinal diseases: A review.

Gender medicine is a medical specialty that addresses gender differences in health and disease. Traditionally, medical research and clinical practice have often been focused on male subjects and patients. As a result, gender differences in medicine have been overlooked. Gender medicine considers the biological, psychological, and social differences between the genders and how these differences affect the development, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease. For ophthalmological diseases epidemiological differences are known. However, there are not yet any gender-based ophthalmic treatment approaches for women and men. This review provides an overview of gender differences in retinal diseases. It is intended to make ophthalmologists, especially retinologists, more sensitive to the topic of gender medicine. The goal is to enhance comprehension of these aspects by highlighting fundamental gender differences. Integrating gender medicine into ophthalmological practice helps promote personalized and gender-responsive health care and makes medical research more accurate and relevant to the entire population.

Endovascular stroke therapy may be safe in patients with elevated international normalized ratio.

INTRODUCTION: Endovascular therapy in acute ischemic stroke is safe and efficient. However, patients receiving oral anticoagulation were excluded in the larger trials. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the safety of endovascular therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke and elevated international normalized ratio (INR) values. METHODS: Retrospective database review of a tertiary care university hospital for patients with anterior circulation stroke treated with endovascular therapy. Patients with anticoagulation other than vitamin K antagonists were excluded. The primary safety endpoint was defined as symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH; ECASS II definition). The efficacy endpoint was the modified Rankin scale (mRS) score after 3 months, dichotomized into favorable outcome (mRS 0-2) and unfavorable outcome (mRS 3-6). RESULTS: 435 patients were included. 90% were treated with stent retriever. 27 (6.2%) patients with an INR of 1.2-1.7 and 21 (4.8%) with an INR >1.7. 33 (7.6%) had sICH and 149 patients (34.3%) had a favorable outcome. Patients with an elevated INR did not have an increased risk for sICH or unfavorable outcome in multivariable analysis. The additional use of IV thrombolysis in patients with an INR of 1.2-1.7 did not increase the risk of sICH or unfavorable outcome. These results were replicated in a sensitivity analysis introducing an error of the INR of ±5%. They were also confirmed using other sICH definitions (Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke (SITS), National Institute of neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Heidelberg bleeding classification). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular therapy in patients with an elevated INR is safe and efficient. Patients with an INR of 1.2-1.7 may be treated with combined IV thrombolysis and endovascular therapy.