Key result
Cardiac imaging reveals distinct sex-based cardiovascular differences, highlighting the need for sex-specific diagnostic thresholds.
Why the study?
Cardiovascular disease in women has been understudied and underdiagnosed due to misconceptions about sex similarities in cardiac physiology and pathology.
The review emphasizes the critical need to recognize sex-specific differences in cardiac anatomy, physiology, and imaging to improve cardiovascular disease diagnosis, risk stratification, and management in women.
Although cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality in women, CVD in women has long been understudied and underdiagnosed. This is largely based on a misconception that hearts in women are similar to those in men with regard to physiological characteristics and physiological responses. Nonetheless, in an era characterized by rapid advances in diagnostic cardiac imaging modalities, there is a greater need to understand sex differences in cardiac anatomy and function, and how these might influence CVD patterns. Such differences include observations that women have greater left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction and more pronounced LV hypertrophy compared with men using echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) respectively. Imaging can help reveal microvascular dysfunction and heart failure, both of which have different characteristics in women compared with men. This review aims to provide a brief summary of the sex differences in cardiovascular pathophysiology among men and women observed across various imaging modalities, including echocardiography, MRI, coronary computed tomography angiography, positron emission tomography, and stress testing, while also referencing sex differences in electrophysiology with respect to cardiac anatomy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tasouli-Drakou et al. (2026) conducted a review in Cardiovascular disease. Biological sex (female) and cardiac imaging vs. Male sex was evaluated. Cardiac imaging across multiple modalities demonstrates significant sex-based differences in cardiovascular anatomy, electrophysiology, and disease presentation, highlighting the need for sex-specific diagnostic thresholds.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: