Search

Background: Women in cardiology experience considerable gender disparities in publications, which hinders their career advancements to higher faculty and senior leadership positions. However, the extent of these disparities across different types of cardiovascular literature is not well understood., Objectives: We investigated gender differences in authorship across various cardiovascular publications over a decade and examined geographic variations in the representation of women authors., Methods: All papers published from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, in 4 major cardiovascular journals (Journal of the American College of Cardiology, European Heart Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association Cardiology, and Nature Reviews Cardiology) were reviewed., Results: Of the 18,535 papers with 111,562 authors, 20.6% of the authors were women, and 47.7% of the papers had no women authors. Over 10 years, the proportion of women authors remained low (20.7% in 2010 to 21.4% in 2019), with the lowest proportion in editorial papers (14.8%) and the highest in research papers (21.8%). More women as first (34.6%) and last (47.6%) authors were affiliated with institutions in the United States compared with other countries. The proportion of women middle-order authors was higher on papers with women as first authors (29.4% vs 20.5%) or last authors (30.6% vs 21.3%), compared with papers with men as first or last authors, respectively., Conclusions: Over the past decade, the proportion of women authors across all article types in major cardiovascular journals remained low. A call to action is needed to promote women in cardiology and provide them with equitable opportunities., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr D.D. Wang is a consultant for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Materialise, and NeoChord; and has received research grant support from Boston Scientific assigned to her employer, Henry Ford Hospital. Dr T.Y. Wang has received research grants to the Duke Clinical Research Institute from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Artivion (formerly Cryolife), Chiesi, Merck, Portola, and Regeneron; and has received consulting honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Artivion (formerly Cryolife), CSL Behring, and Novartis. Dr R. Mehran has received grants from Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, DSI, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and OrbusNeich; has received personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific, Medscape/WebMD, Siemens Medical Solutions, PLx Opco (dba PLx Pharma), Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, Medtelligence, and Janssen Scientific Affairs; has received other compensation from Abbott Laboratories, Abiomed, Bristol Myers Squibb, Claret Medical, Elixir Medical, The Medicines Company, Spectranetics/Philips/Volcano Corp, and Watermark Research Partners; and has received nonfinancial support from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Idorsia Pharmaceuticals. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Bleeding following percutaneous coronary intervention has important prognostic implications. The Academic Research Consortium (ARC) recently proposed a list of clinical criteria to define patients at high bleeding risk (HBR)., Objectives: This study sought to validate the ARC definition for HBR patients in a contemporary real-world cohort., Methods: Patients undergoing coronary stenting between 2014 and 2017 at a tertiary-care center were defined as HBR if they met at least 1 major or 2 minor ARC-HBR criteria. To account for the presence of multiple criteria, patients were further stratified by the number of times they fulfilled the ARC-HBR definition. The primary endpoint was a composite of peri-procedural in-hospital or post-discharge bleeding at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included individual components of the primary bleeding endpoint, myocardial infarction, and all-cause mortality., Results: Among 9,623 patients, 4,278 (44.4%) qualified as HBR. Moderate or severe anemia was the most common major criterion (33.2%); age ≥75 years was the most frequent minor criterion and the most common overall (46.8%). The rate of the primary bleeding endpoint at 1 year was 9.1% in HBR patients compared with 3.2% in non-HBR patients (p < 0.001), with a stepwise increase in bleeding risk corresponding to the number of times the ARC-HBR definition was fulfilled. HBR patients also experienced significantly higher rates of all secondary endpoints., Conclusions: This study validates the ARC-HBR definition in a contemporary group of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. The ARC-HBR definition identified patients at increased risk not only for bleeding but also for thrombotic events, including all-cause mortality. Coexistence of multiple ARC-HBR criteria showed additive prognostic value., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)