The phytochemicals present in fruits and vegetables may play an important role in deceasing chronic disease risk. Grapes, one of the most popular and widely cultivated and consumed fruits in the world, are rich in phytochemicals. Epidemiological evidence has linked the consumption of grapes with reduced risk of chronic diseases, including certain types of cancer and cardiovascular disease. In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that grapes have strong antioxidant activity, inhibiting cancer cell proliferation and suppressing platelet aggregation, while also lowering cholesterol. Grapes contain a variety of phytochemicals, like phenolic acids, stilbenes, anthocyanins, and proanthocyanidins, all of which are strong antioxidants. The phytochemical composition of grapes, however, varies greatly among different varieties. While extensive research exists, a literature review of the health benefits of grapes and their phytochemicals has not been compiled to summarize this work. The aim of this paper is to critically review the most recent literature regarding the concentrations, biological activities, and mechanisms of grape phytochemicals.

While the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors has decreased in the United States in recent years, cardiovascular disparities by sex and race persist. Among the factors contributing to these disparities is the physical environment in which individuals live. Neighborhood characteristics, ranging from air pollution exposure to residential segregation, have been found to be related to cardiovascular health (CVH) and stroke risk. Through the use of cross‐sectional, longitudinal, and analytic regression modeling, we are gaining clarity about the relationship between an individual's external environment and CVH. Moreover, differences in CVH vary by sex and/or race within the same neighborhood. The mechanism by which these disparities exist is still being explored. In this review, we examine the literature that has accumulated regarding how external environments and community factors affect individuals and populations by race and sex.

Despite recent general improvements in health care, significant disparities persist in the cardiovascular care of women and racial/ethnic minorities. This is true even when income, education level, and site of care are taken into consideration. Possible explanations for these disparities include socioeconomic considerations, elements of discrimination and racism that affect socioeconomic status, and access to adequate medical care. Coronary revascularization has become the accepted and recommended treatment for myocardial infarction (MI) today and is one of the most common major medical interventions in the United States, with more than 1 million procedures each year. This review discusses recent data on disparities in co-morbidities and presentation symptoms, care and access to medical resources, and outcomes in revascularization as treatment for acute coronary syndrome, looking especially at women and minority populations in the United States. The data show that revascularization is used less in both female and minority patients. We summarize recent data on disparities in co-morbidities and presentation symptoms related to MI; access to care, medical resources, and treatments; and outcomes in women, blacks, and Hispanics. The picture is complicated among the last group by the many Hispanic/Latino subgroups in the United States. Some differences in outcomes are partially explained by presentation symptoms and co-morbidities and external conditions such as local hospital capacity. Of particular note is the striking differential in both presentation co-morbidities and mortality rates seen in women, compared to men, especially in women ≤ 55 years of age. Surveillance data on other groups in the United States such as American Indians/Alaska Natives and the many Asian subpopulations show disparities in risk factors and co-morbidities, but revascularization as treatment for MI in these populations has not been adequately studied. Significant research is required to understand the extent of disparities in treatment in these subpopulations.

Despite nearly 30 years of treatment guidelines for cardiovascular diseases and risk factors and a parallel growth in the understanding of cardiovascular disease disparities by sex and race/ethnicity, such disparities persist. The goals of this review are to consider the possible role of three factors: the one-size-fits-all approach of most treatment guidelines, adoption of guideline-recommended treatments in clinical practice, and patient adherence to recommended practice, especially the relationship between adherence and patient perceptions. Guideline authors repeatedly call for more inclusion of women and minorities in the clinical trials that make guidelines possible, but despite challenges, guidelines are largely effective when implemented, as shown by a wealth of post hoc analyses. However, the data also suggest that one-size-fits-all treatment guidelines are not sufficiently generalizable and there is evidence of a distinct lag time between definitive clinical evidence and its widespread implementation. Patient perspectives may also play both a direct and indirect role in adherence to treatments. What emerges from the literature is an important continuing need for increased inclusion of women and minority subgroups in clinical trials to allow analyses that can provide evidence for differential treatments when needed. Increased effort is needed to implement definitive clinical improvements more rapidly. Patient input and feedback may also help inform clinical practice and clinical research with a better understanding of how to enhance patient adherence, but evidence for this is lacking for the groups most affected by disparities.

No abstract