Women have generally worse outcomes after myocardial infarction (MI) compared to men. The reasons for these disparities are multifactorial. At the beginning is the notion-widespread in the community and health care providers-that women are at low risk for MI. This can impact on primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in women, with lower use of preventative therapies and lifestyle counselling. It can also lead to delays in presentation in the event of an acute MI, both at the patient and health care provider level. This is of particular concern in the case of ST elevation MI (STEMI), where "time is muscle". Even after first medical contact, women with acute MI experience delays to diagnosis with less timely reperfusion and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Compared to men, women are less likely to undergo invasive diagnostic testing or PCI. After being diagnosed with a STEMI, women receive less guidelinedirected medical therapy and potent antiplatelets than men. The consequences of these discrepancies are significant-with higher mortality, major cardiovascular events and bleeding after MI in women compared to men. We review the sex disparities in pathophysiology, risk factors, presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes for acute MI, to answer the question: are they due to biology or bias, or both? KeywordsSex discrepancies Myocardial infarction Women Gender discrepancies dramatically reduced over the past decade [2]. Despite this improvement, there remain two important negative trends. First, recent data shows this decline has decelerated, particularly in younger females [3]. Second, women throughout all age groups and ethnicities have worse outcomes after MI compared to men [4][5][6]. The reasons for these disparities are multifactorial (displayed in Figure 1), but the question remains: Are these disparities due to sex (biology) or disparities in care (bias)?

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Gender disparity remains a prominent medical workforce issue, extending beyond surgical specialties with low proportions of female doctors.Aims: To examine female representation within Australia and New Zealand (NZ) among physician specialties and certain comparator surgical specialties with a focus on cardiology as an outlier of workforce gender equality.Methods: Data of practising medical specialists, new consultants and trainees were sought from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, the Medical Council of NZ and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (2015)(2016)(2017). The stratified data pertaining to interventional cardiologists were obtained through direct contact with individual hospitals (from 2017 to 2018) and derived from state-based cardiac registries.Results: In Australia and NZ, there were fewer female practising adult medicine physician consultants (n = 8956, 32%, P < 0.001), with gender disparities seen across most physician specialties. Cardiology (15%) was the only physician specialty with <20% representation; gastroenterology (23%), neurology (27%) and respiratory medicine (29%) had <30% female representation at the consultant level. The rates of cardiology (15%) and interventional cardiology (5%) were similar to general surgery (15%) and orthopaedics (4%). Although more than half of physician trainees are female, and most physician specialties are approaching or have equal gender ratios at the trainee level, cardiology (23%) and interventional cardiology (9%) remain significantly underrepresented.Conclusions: Cardiology is the only physician specialty with <20% female consultants, and this disparity is reflected throughout every stage of the cardiology training programme. Increased awareness and proactive strategies are needed to improve gender disparity within this underrepresented medical specialty.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Reflection-in-action, or the capacity to "think on your feet" is

No abstract