Gender differences in the management of acute chest pain

Support for the “Yentl syndrome”

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether evaluation and management of males and females differ after presentation to the emergency department with acute chest pain.

DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with follow-up at 1 month.

SETTING: Urban teaching hospital.

PATIENTS: The study population included 1,411 patients who were 30 years of age or older who visited the emergency department with acute chest pain from October 1990 through May 1992. These 1,411 patients represent 69% of the 2,056 patients approached for consent. The utilization of exercise stress testing as outpatients was measured for a subset of 954 patients who were interviewed at 1 month after their presentation.

MEASUREMENTS/MAIN RESULTS: After controlling for clinical and nonclinical predictors, women were less likely to be admitted to the hospital (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47, 0.99). Among the 954 patients with 1-month follow-up, women were less likely than men to undergo an exercise stress test during the first month after presentation, with borderline statistical significance after adjusting for the interaction between gender and admission to the hospital (adjusted OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.09, 1.0). Among the patients who were admitted to the hospital, women were as likely as men to undergo exercise stress testing (adjusted OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.57, 1.2) but were less likely to undergo cardiac catheterization (adjusted OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.25, 0.80).

CONCLUSIONS: Gender-based differences in management may occur at several stages in the evaluation of patients with acute chest pain. Observed differences in use of invasive procedures between men and women may be due in part to lower rates of exercise test use and admission to the hospital for evaluation of acute chest pain.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Ayanian JZ, Epstein AM. Differences in the use of procedures between women and men hospitalized for coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:221–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Bickell NA, Pieper DS, Lee LK, et al. Referral patterns for coronary artery disease treatment: gender bias or good clinical judgment? Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:791–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Krumholz HM, Douglas PS, Lauer MS, et al. Selection of patients for coronary angiography and coronary revascularization early after myocardial infarction: Is there evidence for gender bias? Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:785–90.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Tobin JN, Wassertheir-Smoller S, Wexler JP, et al. Sex bias in considering coronary bypass surgery. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107:19–25.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Maynard C, Litwin PE, Martin JS, et al. Gender differences in the treatment and outcome of acute myocardial infarction: results from the Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Registry. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152:972–6.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Steingart RM, Packer M, Hamm P, et al. Sex differences in the management of coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:226–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Maynard C, Althouse R, Cerqueira M, et al. Underutilization of thrombolytic therapy in eligible women with acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 1991;68:529–30.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Pfeffer MA, Moye LA, Braunwald E, et al. Selection bias in the use of thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1991;266:528–32.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Udvarhelyi IS, Gatsonis C, Epstein AM, et al. Acute myocardial infarction in the Medicare population. JAMA. 1992;268:2530–6.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Shaw LJ, Miller DD, Romeis JC, et al. Gender differences in the noninvasive evaluation and management of patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:559–66.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Khan SS, Nessim S, Gray R, et al. Increased mortality of women in coronary artery bypass surgery: evidence for referral bias. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112:561–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    King KB, Clark PC, Hicks GL. Pattern of referral and recovery in women and men undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol. 1992;69:179–82.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Kelsey SF, James M, Holubkov AL, et al. Results of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in women; 1985–1986 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Coronary Angioplasty Registry. Circulation. 1993;87:720–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Weintraub WS, Craver JM, Cohen CL, et al. Influence of age on results of coronary artery surgery. Circulation. 1991;84(Suppl III):III-226-35.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Gardner TJ, Horneffer PJ, Gott VL, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting in women: a ten-year perspective. Ann Surg. 1985;201:780–3.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Christakis GT, Ivanov J, Weisel RD, et al. The changing pattern of coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation. 1989;80(Suppl I):I-151-61.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Eaker ED, Dronmal R, Kennedy JW, et al. Comparison of the long-term, postsurgical survival of women and men in the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS). Am Heart J. 1989;117:71–80.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Higgins TL, Estafanous FG, Loop FD, et al. Stratification of morbidity and mortality outcome by preoperative risk factors in coronary artery bypass patients: a clinical severity score. JAMA. 1991;267:2344–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Eysmann SB, Douglas PS. Reperfusion and revascularization strategies for coronary artery disease in women. JAMA. 1992;268:1903–7.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Healy B. The Yentl syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:274–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Goldman L, Hashimoto B, Cook EF, et al. Comparative reproducibility and validity of systems for assessing cardiovascular functional class: advantages of a new specific activity scale. Circulation. 1981;64:1227.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chron Dis. 1987;40:373.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Goldman L, Cook EF, Brand DA, et al. A computer protocol to predict myocardial infarction in emergency department patients with chest pain. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:797.

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas H. Lee.

Additional information

From the Section for Clinical Epidemiology, the Division of General Medicine, and the Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, and the Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Supported in part by a grant from the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (RO1-HS06452). Dr. Paula Johnson was the recipient of a Clinician-Scientist Award (91004160) at the time of this study and is now the recipient of a Minority Faculty Development Award from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Thomas Lee was the recipient of an Established Investigator Award (900119) from the American Heart Association.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, P.A., Goldman, L., Orav, E.J. et al. Gender differences in the management of acute chest pain. J Gen Intern Med 11, 209–217 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02642477

Download citation

Key words

  • gender
  • exercise stress test
  • cardiac catheterization
  • resource utilization