Radial artery access is under-utilized in women undergoing PCI despite potential benefits: Mayo Clinic PCI Registry.

BACKGROUND: Women may benefit from radial artery access (RAA) for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) due to a higher risk of bleeding compared to men; however, RAA may be underutilized in women. We sought to determine the frequency and predictors of RAA use in patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: We studied 21,123 (29.0% female) participants in the Mayo Clinic PCI Registry from January 1, 2006-December 31, 2016. Data were analyzed as a cohort and by time tertiles. Frequency of RAA versus femoral access and bleeding events were recorded. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of RAA. RESULTS: In the overall cohort, women compared to men were older (69.6 ± 12.6 vs. 65.6 ± 11.9; p < .001), more likely to present with acute coronary syndrome (82.0% in women vs. 80.0% in men; p = .0008) and had more comorbidities. RAA increased from tertile one (3.5% for women vs. 4.0% for men; p = .3) through tertile three (46.8% for women vs. 50.3% for men; p = .01), but remained lower in women. In multivariable analysis, female sex is associated with 22% less RAA use (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.72-0.84; p < .0001). Women compared to men experienced more bleeding (6.3 vs. 3.0%; p < .0001) but bleeding was less likely in RAA (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36-0.56; p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Women undergoing PCI are less likely to receive RAA compared to men despite having a higher risk of bleeding. This trend persists despite increase in RAA use. Given the potential benefit of RAA in women, sex should be considered in patient selection for RAA.

The Timing Hypothesis: Hormone Therapy for Treating Symptomatic Women During Menopause and Its Relationship to Cardiovascular Disease.

The risks and benefits of menopausal hormonal therapy (HT) have been evaluated extensively over the past three decades. While the efficacy of HT for management of menopausal symptoms, including vasomotor symptoms and vaginal dryness is well established, its relationship to cardiovascular outcomes is complex. The timing hypothesis, which posits that the cardiovascular effects of HT depend on the timing of initiation of HT in relation to menopause, has helped shape our understanding of the cardiovascular outcomes related to HT. Based on results from female monkey studies, the timing hypothesis provides a framework to explain discrepancies in results between multiple observation studies and the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) hormone therapy trials. The WHI trials closed early in 2002 in part because of increased cardiovascular events seen in women on treatment. Subanalysis of the WHI results by age group, and more recent randomized control studies, including the Kronos Early Estrogen and Prevention Study (KEEPS) and Early Versus Late Intervention Trial (ELITE), demonstrate that the risk of adverse cardiovascular events for HT are low for women <60 years of age or within 10 year from menopause. Although current data does not support using HT for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, it does suggest that HT can be safely used to treat symptoms in appropriately selected women close to menopause.

What the Women's Health Initiative has taught us about menopausal hormone therapy.

Our understanding of the complex relationship between menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk has been informed by detailed analyses in the Women's Health Initiative (WHI), the largest randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating MHT in postmenopausal women. Although the WHI demonstrated increased risk of CVD events with MHT in the overall cohort, subsequent secondary analyses demonstrated that these risks were influenced by the woman's age and time since menopause, with lower absolute risks and hazard ratios for younger than older women. As MHT is the most effective treatment for the vasomotor symptoms of menopause, it is important to understand its risks and how to conduct risk stratification for symptomatic women. In addition to reviewing the WHI findings, studies pre- and post-WHI are reviewed to describe the relationship between MHT and CVD risk in menopausal women. The absolute risks of adverse cardiovascular events for MHT initiated in women close to menopause are low, and all-cause mortality effects are neutral or even favorable for younger menopausal women. The WHI has advanced and refined our understanding of the relationship between MHT and CVD risk. Although MHT should not be used for CVD prevention, absolute risks of CVD are low when MHT is started close to menopause in healthy women and hazard ratios tend to be lower for younger than older women. For women in early menopause and without contraindications to treatment, the benefits of MHT are likely to outweigh the risks when used for menopausal symptom management.

Reflection Magnitude, a Measure of Arterial Stiffness, Predicts Incident Heart Failure in Men But Not Women: Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).

BACKGROUND: Arterial stiffness is a risk factor for heart failure (HF) and is higher in women. Our objective was to investigate sex differences between arterial stiffness and incident HF in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) population. METHODS AND RESULTS: Applanation tonometry from 5959 participants (52.8% women) was used to calculate augmentation index (AIx), pulse pressure amplification (PPA), and reflection magnitude (RM). Sex-specific risk of HF was assessed with the use of a competing-risk regression model. Women had higher AIx (P < .00001), higher RM (P = .023), and lower PPA (P < .00001) indicating greater arterial stiffness in women. However, increasing RM quartile independently predicted HF in men (adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals: Q2: 2.05 [1.06-3.96; P = .033]; Q3: 2.49 [1.30-4.73; P = .006]; Q4: 3.26 [1.75-6.08; P = .0002]) but not in women (Q2: 1.04 [0.54-1.98; P = .91]; Q3: 1.30 [0.71-2.37; P = .4]; Q4: 0.79 [0.4-1.55; P = .49]). CONCLUSION: Women demonstrate greater arterial stiffness than men. Despite this, arterial stiffness, as measured by RM, predicts incident HF in men but not in women. RM represents a novel risk factor for HF in men but not in women. Further investigation of risk factors for HF in women is warranted. CONCLUSION: Arterial stiffness, measured by RM, predicts incident HF in men but not in women in this MESA cohort.