Sex-related disparities in recognition and management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are an ongoing global concern. This retrospective study examined sex-based differences in clinical presentation, diagnostic classification, early management, and short-term outcomes among patients with chest pain attended by emergency medical services (EMS) across a private hospital network in Brazil.
The analysis used a clinical registry covering EMS encounters from January 2020 through June 2024 across 14 Brazilian states within a private hospital network. The study population was limited to patients with confirmed ACS. Cardiologists reviewed charts and assigned diagnostic categories. Multivariable regression models assessed sex differences in presentation, diagnosis, treatment, timing metrics, and in-hospital outcomes. Sensitivity analyses included clustering standard errors by state and calculation of E-values to assess potential unmeasured confounding.
The registry identified 7,171 patients with confirmed ACS for inclusion. Cardiologist-assigned diagnoses classified events as unstable angina (UA), ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). The diagnostic distribution and subsequent analyses are reported on this confirmed-ACS cohort.
Treatment metrics reported in the registry included early antiplatelet therapy. Across the cohort, 91.7% of patients received aspirin and 89.6% received at least one additional antiplatelet agent during the initial management period. Other specific treatments were not detailed in the source report beyond these antiplatelet data.
Multivariable regression was used to estimate adjusted associations between sex and diagnostic classification, timing metrics, and outcomes. The investigators performed sensitivity analyses using state-clustered standard errors and calculated E-values to gauge the robustness of observed associations to potential unmeasured confounding.
Of 7,171 patients with confirmed ACS, 68.2% were male. Median age for the total sample was 63.0 years (IQR 20.0). Women were older than men, with median ages reported as 67.0 years (IQR 20.0) for women and 61.0 years (IQR 19.0) for men.
Cardiologist classifications distributed as follows: unstable angina in 46.7% of cases, STEMI in 18.8%, and NSTEMI in 34.6%.
High overall use of antiplatelet therapy was observed, with 91.7% receiving aspirin and 89.6% receiving at least one additional antiplatelet agent early in care.
Door-to-ECG time differed by sex in unadjusted analyses: women had a longer unadjusted door-to-ECG time (β = 1.53 minutes; 95% CI 0.24–2.82). However, this difference did not remain statistically significant after multivariable adjustment (adjusted β = 1.04 minutes; 95% CI −0.27 to 2.36).
After adjustment for covariates, women were more likely than men to have chest pain categorized as probably or possibly ischemic rather than definitely ischemic (adjusted odds ratios 1.51 [95% CI 1.33–1.72] for probably ischemic and 1.60 [1.37–1.86] for possibly ischemic).
Relative to unstable angina, women had lower adjusted odds of receiving a diagnosis of STEMI (adjusted OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.51–0.68) and lower adjusted odds of NSTEMI (adjusted OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.66–0.83).
In-hospital mortality did not differ between sexes in this cohort; the analysis found no evidence of excess short-term mortality among women treated within this private network.
Within this private Brazilian hospital network, women with confirmed ACS were more frequently assigned less definitive ischemic chest pain classifications and were less often diagnosed with STEMI or NSTEMI after adjustment. While unadjusted door-to-ECG delays were observed for women, differences did not persist after adjustment. Mortality outcomes were similar by sex.
These results suggest potential sex-related differences in early recognition and diagnostic classification of ACS in EMS-attended chest pain patients. The authors recommend that sex-sensitive triage and diagnostic protocols be considered to reduce inequities in ACS recognition and treatment, based on the observed patterns in classification and diagnosis.
The study received institutional review board approval from Daher Hospital under protocol number 8.559.285, and the requirement for informed consent was waived because the analysis used de-identified retrospective registry data. The source report states that the data are not publicly available; de-identified data may be provided by the corresponding author on reasonable request subject to institutional approval and applicable ethical and data protection requirements.