Gransnet forums

Health

Revised heart attack definitions which affect women

(6 Posts)
Luckygirl3 Wed 02-Sept-26 07:52:18

I was intrigued to see this announcement.

My heart attack went undiagnosed in the first A&E I attended (while on holiday) as my troponin levels ( a chemical that indicates heart damage) were not too high. They were rising but were below the danger level that is based on the norm for men. They discharged me saying I was in oesophofeal spasm, in spite of the fact that I had known atrial fibrillation and had failed an exercise test at home hospital and was awaiting an angiogram there. So a cardiac history that should have rung alarm bells!
When I got home I was still unwell and I was taken by ambulance into my local hospital where the heart attack was diagnosed and treated with a stent to my right coronary artery, which was blocked to 94% at one point. I was very lucky.
The fact that they are now recognising the need to diagnose women on a lower troponin threshold in is very good news indeed.
It would be interesting to know what other medical thresholds are based on research with men.

ViceVersa Wed 02-Sept-26 08:01:10

I think there are quite a few - I knew about the heart attack difference, but there are other conditions which present very differently in women than men. This is exactly why it is so important, especially in a medical sense, that people are treated based on their biological sex, and not what gender they choose to identify as.

Luckygirl3 Wed 02-Sept-26 08:15:56

I have just AI'd it and it seems that there have had to be lots of changes in diagnostic practice in lots of tests and conditions as they were failing to recognise sex differences. These have included anaemia, kidney function, osteoporosis... a long list.

The prime example is heart disease which has long been based on the classic "man clutches chest and falls over" model. It is good that things are changing, but very strange that people ever thought that diagnostic criteria should not look at possible sex differences.

Fallingstar Wed 02-Sept-26 08:19:41

Most medical training is based upon men, not women, therefore women are at a disadvantage. Women can also be treated differently to men when presenting at the GP and at A&E, their complaints are more often dismissed, with medical practitioners citing periods/periomenopause/or post menopause causing or exacerbating symptoms. This was the findings of Sussex University in a very interesting lecture about medical ethics I attended once, and from my own experience I can relate to this.

Luckygirl3 Wed 02-Sept-26 08:24:50

It's not great is it?
I have often observed from when I was working in the health service that women's problems are more likely to be diagnosed (?dismissed) as having a psychological cause than with men. It is difficult to know how true this is.

lovethepuppies Wed 02-Sept-26 08:29:57

Studies have often focused on men, especially because they don't have the hormonal changes that can influence results (which you'd think would be worth extra study in itself!).

When I read the symptoms in women I always think I'd never know I was having a heart attack. I often have those kinds of symptoms and always have.

I did once go to emergency with chest pain. They put it down to indigestion (it wasn't) and I later learned that another condition I have can cause chest pain, strangely. So it makes sense now.