Brief report
Underutilization of thrombolytic therapy in eligible women with acute myocardial infarction

https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(91)90791-IGet rights and content

Abstract

New methods for the management of coronary artery disease are almost always evaluated in male patients or in groups of patients who are predominantly male.1 This bias is in part due to the fact that men develop coronary artery disease more frequently and at an earlier age than do women.2 This problem is compounded by the usual practice of excluding elderly patients from therapeutic trials. Most trials of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have an upper age limit of 70 or 75 years, as was the case in our own trials.3 Because thrombolytic therapy has been largely evaluated in men, we have been concerned that once this therapy was demonstrated to be effective, it might be preferentially applied. In this analysis, we attempt to specify the role of gender in the eligibility for and use of thrombolytic therapy.

References (5)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (101)

  • Cardiogenic shock in women

    2012, Interventional Cardiology Clinics
    Citation Excerpt :

    Although a small randomized trial suggested some benefit with NO synthase inhibitors,65 a further study using tilarginine, an isoform nonselective NO synthase inhibitor (1-mg/kg bolus and 5-h infusion), did not reduce mortality among patients with refractory CS complicating MI despite an open infarct artery (in this study, only 26% of patients were women).2 Historically, perhaps in light of higher rates of contraindications among women, thrombolysis has been underused and door-to-needle times in those treated have been longer than for men.66,67 Despite this, rates of reperfusion between the genders have been comparable.68

  • External validity of randomised controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?"

    2005, Lancet
    Citation Excerpt :

    A review of 41 US National Institutes of Health RCTs found an average exclusion rate of 73%.39 Strict eligibility criteria can limit the external validity of RCTs and result in lower rates of treatment in clinical practice,81 but the criteria are at least available for scrutiny, or should be (discussed below). More difficult is the extent to which trials with seemingly reasonable eligibility criteria end up with highly selected populations.

View all citing articles on Scopus
1

Dr. Maynard's address is: Division of Cardiology, RG-22, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195.

View full text