Faculty of Medicine

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://repository.ukim.mk/handle/20.500.12188/14

Browse

Settings

Has files: YesSubject: search.filters.subject.Prognosis

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Item type:Publication,
    Sex and gender differences in coronary pathophysiology and ischaemic heart disease
    (Oxford University Press (OUP), 2026-01-23)
    Manfrini, Olivia
    ;
    Tousoulis, Dimitris
    ;
    Antoniades, Charalambos
    ;
    Badimon, Lina
    ;
    Bugiardini, Raffaele
    Ischaemic heart disease shows important differences between men and women, requiring an understanding of sex and gender dissimilarities to improve outcomes. This Scientific Statement provides an updated review of the current knowledge from risk factors to prognosis. It discusses the unequal impact of certain traditional risk factors between men and women, along with additional factors, such as hormonal changes and treatments (including those for transgender people and cancer), pregnancy-related complications, and autoimmune diseases, which contribute to the sex-specific risk profiles. Moreover, it outlines functional and structural sex differences in the pathophysiology (e.g. coronary atheroma plaques and burden, coronary dissection, vasospasm, and microvascular disease) with women being more prone to microvascular disease and endothelial dysfunction, while paradoxically experiencing less severe myocardial ischaemia at similar levels of coronary stenosis. The document further addresses the evaluation of diagnostic tools, which often have a male-centric bias, resulting in underdiagnosis in women who also tend to receive less guideline-recommended treatment. Additionally, women can have different responses and side effects to various preventive and therapeutic treatments, potentially contributing to the worse prognosis documented in acute coronary syndromes with obstructive coronary artery disease, particularly at a young age. Considering all these sex and gender differences and the low enrolment of women in randomized controlled trials, questions arise regarding the optimal treatment for women. Addressing sex differences requires conducting sex-specific research to close the knowledge gap. Overall, the Scientific Statement highlights all relevant sex- and gender-specific dissimilarities to advance clinical practice and identify directions for future research to improve guideline recommendations for equitable care.
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Item type:Publication,
    Assessment of the Non-Cystic Fibrosis Bronchiectasis Severity: The FACED Score vs the Bronchiectasis Severity Index
    (Bentham Science Publishers Ltd., 2015)
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    Introduction: Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (NCFB) is a multidimensional disease, and no single isolated parameter is proved to have sufficient power for any overall determination of its severity and prognosis. Objective: To compare the results of the assessment of the NCFB severity with respect to its prognosis in the same patients by two different validated scores, i.e. the FACED score and the Bronchiectasis Severity Index (BSI). Methods: An observational study including 37 patients with NCFB (16 males and 21 female aged 46 to 76 years) was performed. All patients underwent evaluation of the variables incorporated in the FACED score (FEV1 % predicted, age, chronic colonization by Pseudomaonas aeruginosa, radiological extent of the disease, and dyspnea) and in the BSI (age, body mass index, FEV1 % predicted, hospitalization and exacerbations in previous year, dyspnea, chronic colonization by Pseudomaonas aeruginosa and other microrganisms, and radiological extent of the disease). Results: According to the value of the derived overall FACED score we found 17 patients (45.9%) with mild bronchiectasis, 14 patients (37.8%) with moderate bronchiectasis and 6 patients (16.2%) with severe bronchiectasis. The mean derived FACED score was 3.4 ± 1.3. In addition, according to the value of the derived overall BSI score, the frequency of patients with low, intermediate and high BSI score was 16 patients (43,2%), 14 patients (37.8%) and 7 patients (18.9%), respectively. The mean derived BSI score was 6.4 ± 2.5. Conclusion: We found similar results by the assessment of the NCFB severity in regard to its prognosis by both the FACED score and the BSI. Further studies determining how these scores may impact clinical practice are needed.