Search

Background Clinical practice guidelines for the management and convalescence of patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) have yet to be developed. The targeted content, delivery, and outcomes of interventions that benefit this population remain unclear. Patient‐informed data are required to substantiate observational research and provide evidence to inform and standardize clinical activities. Methods and Results Patients diagnosed with SCAD (N=89; 86.5% women; mean age, 53.2 years) were purposively selected from 5 large tertiary care hospitals. Patients completed sociodemographic and medical questionnaires and participated in an interview using a patient‐piloted semistructured interview guide. Interviews were transcribed and subjected to framework analysis using inductive and then deductive coding techniques. Approximately 1500 standard transcribed pages of interview data were collected. Emotional distress was the most commonly cited precipitating factor (56%), with an emphasis on anxiety symptoms. The awareness and detection of SCAD as a cardiac event was low among patients (35%) and perceived to be moderate among health care providers (55%). Health care providers' communication of the prognosis and self‐management of SCAD were perceived to be poor (79%). Postevent psychological disorders among patients were evident (30%), and 73% feared recurrence. Short‐ and longer‐term follow‐up that was tailored to patients' needs was desired (72%). Secondary prevention programming was recommended, but there were low completion rates of conventional cardiac rehabilitation (48%), and current programming was deemed inadequate. Conclusions This early‐stage, pretrial research has important implications for the acute and long‐term management of patients with SCAD. Additional work is required to validate the hypotheses generated from this patient‐oriented research.

Background Women continue to be underrepresented in cardiology and even more so in leadership positions. We evaluated the trends and gender differences in the guideline writing groups of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines from 2006 to 2020. Methods and Results We extracted all guidelines authors from 2006 to 2020, assessed their gender from publicly available profiles, and compared differences based on subspecialties and specific societies. Stratified and trend analyses were performed using χ2 and average annual percentage change/average 5 year percentage change. A total of 80 ACC/AHA (1288 authors [28% women]), 64 CCS (988 authors [26% women]), and 59 ESC (1157 authors [16% women]) guidelines were analyzed. A significant increase in inclusion of women was seen in ACC/AHA (12.6% [2006] to 42.6% [2020]; average annual percentage change, 6.6% [2.3% to 11.1%]; P=0.005) and ESC (7.1% [2006] to 25.8% [2020]; average annual percentage change, 6.6% [0.2% to 13.5%]; P=0.04), but the trend remained similar in CCS (20.6% [2006] to 36.3% [2020]; average annual percentage change, −0.1% (−3.7% to 3.5%); P=0.94), guideline authors. More women were coauthors in the ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines when women were chairs of guidelines. There was a persistent disparity of women among guideline authors for general cardiology and all subspecialties, except for pediatric cardiology and heart failure guidelines. The appointment of women authors as a chair was significantly low in all societies (22.4% [ACC/AHA], 16.9% [CCS], and 7.2% [ESC]; P=0.008). Conclusions There is a significant disparity in the inclusion of women on all national guideline committees, in addition to serving as a chair of cardiology guidelines. Further advocacy is required to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion in our cardiology guidelines globally.