Background Women have been associated with higher rates of recurrent events after percutaneous coronary intervention than men, possibly attributable to advanced age at presentation and greater comorbidities. These factors also put women at higher risk of bleeding, which may influence therapeutic strategies and clinical outcomes. Methods and Results We performed a patient-level pooled analysis of 4 postapproval registries to evaluate sex-related differences in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. HBR required fulfillment of at least 1 major or 2 minor criteria of the Academic Research Consortium definition. Outcomes of interest were major bleeding and major adverse cardiac events (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or definite/probable stent thrombosis). Of the total 10 502 patients, 2832 (27.0%) were women. The prevalence of HBR was higher in women compared with men (29.0% versus 20.5%, P<0.0001). Women at HBR were older and had more comorbidities, while men at HBR were more often smokers, with prior myocardial infarction and more complex coronary lesions. At 4 years, women at HBR had significantly higher major bleeding compared with men at HBR (10.8% versus 6.2%, P<0.0001); however, this difference was attenuated after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.41-2.08). Major adverse cardiac event rates between groups were similar (12.2% versus 12.6%, P=0.82) and remained consistent after adjustment (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.32-1.28). Conclusions The prevalence of HBR was higher in women compared with men, with considerable differences in the distribution of criteria. Women at HBR experienced higher rates of major bleeding but similar major adverse cardiac event rates compared with men at HBR at 4 years.
Keywords: everolimus‐eluting stent; high bleeding risk; major bleeding; percutaneous coronary intervention; sex.
Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Durable Polymer Cobalt-Chromium Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients at High Bleeding Risk: A Patient-Level Stratified Analysis From Four Postapproval Studies.Circulation. 2020 Mar 17;141(11):891-901. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.041619. Epub 2020 Jan 29. Circulation. 2020. PMID: 31992063
Is Bare-Metal Stent Implantation Still Justifiable in High Bleeding Risk Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention?: A Pre-Specified Analysis From the ZEUS Trial.JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Mar 14;9(5):426-36. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.11.015. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016. PMID: 26965932 Clinical Trial.
Sex-based differences in outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: a report from TRANSLATE-ACS.J Am Heart Assoc. 2014 Feb 7;3(1):e000523. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.113.000523. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014. PMID: 24510115 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Ann Intern Med. 2016 Jun 7;164(11):752-63. doi: 10.7326/M16-0006. Epub 2016 Apr 5. Ann Intern Med. 2016. PMID: 27042809 Review.
Defining High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Circulation. 2019 Jul 16;140(3):240-261. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.040167. Epub 2019 May 22. Circulation. 2019. PMID: 31116032 Free PMC article. Review.