Abstract
Purpose of Review
The literature on the importance of sex in heart failure diagnosis is scarce. This review aims to summarize current knowledge on sex differences regarding the diagnosis of heart failure.
Recent Findings
Comorbidities are frequent in patients with heart failure, and their prevalence differs between sexes; some differences in symptomatology and diagnostic imaging techniques were also found. Biomarkers also usually show differences between sexes but are not significant enough to establish sex-specific ranges.
Summary
This article outlines current information related to sex differences in HF diagnosis. Research in this field remains to be done. Maintaining a high diagnostic suspicion, actively searching for the disease, and considering the sex is relevant for early diagnosis and better prognosis. In addition, more studies with equal representation are needed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Heart failure (HF) has a similar overall prevalence in both sexes [1]. However, pronounced differences are found in age, comorbidity, etiology, mortality, and prognosis. Women with HF tend to present more diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, anemia, or kidney diseases, while men are more prone, concomitantly, to develop stroke or to be smokers [2, 3]. Women are also more likely to be frail, although it has a worse prognosis in men [4, 5]. Considering those differences, it is reasonable to think there are discrepancies between those patients at the time of diagnosis. Nevertheless, studies comparing sex differences in HF diagnosis are scarce [6]. Moreover, women are underrepresented in clinical trials, and statistically significant comparisons between the sexes are complex [7].
This research aims to summarise the current knowledge on the differences between men and women regarding clinical presentation, imaging diagnosis, and biomarkers in HF diagnosis.
Diagnosis of HF and Sex Differences
The main red flags to consider when HF is suspected in women are shown in Table 1. All sex differences related to HF diagnosis are summarised in Fig. 1.
Sex-Specific Signs and Symptoms of Heart Failure
On admission for acute HF, symptoms of HF, such as dyspnea and edema, are common in both men and women. However, women tend to present severe symptoms. Women more frequently suffer dyspnea, orthopnea, and auscultatory rales (intravascular congestion phenotype), while men more regularly manifest larger maximal inferior cava vena diameter and peripheral edema (tissue congestion phenotype) [8, 9].
Regarding the signs and symptoms of acute HF in hospitalized patients, women have more dyspnea on a scale of 0 (no dyspnea) to 10 (severe dyspnea at rest). Women have a mean of 5, while men have a mean score of 3. In addition, women experience more significant weight loss and higher diuresis. Concerning edema, 80% of men had lower extremity edema compared to 68% of women [10•, 11, 12].
At the time of diagnosis, apart from symptoms, more comorbidities are often found in women related to traditional and sex-specific cardiovascular risk factors [9]. Women suffer not only higher rates of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension but also mental disease or psychological stress added to sex-specific risk factors such as hormonal changes like early menopause [13]. Furthermore, women have a higher prevalence of gastrointestinal bleeding and a lower prevalence of peripheral vascular disease [11].
More differences between sexes arise when HF is secondary to myocardial infarction. Women tend to present more microvascular angina, and vagal symptoms accompany chest pain, which can act as a confounder and delay diagnosis.
In early menopause, the decline in endothelial function may be involved in the pathophysiology of chest pain and dyspnea, which is sometimes confused with stress. In the case of premenopausal women, admission of HF secondary to infarction is often related to myocardial infarction with no obstructive coronary artery (MINOCA). In contrast, postmenopausal women are more predisposed to Takotsubo cardiomyopathy. In both cases, comorbidities and the wide range of symptoms can lead to underdiagnosis. In addition, women with chest pain syndromes have a twofold increased risk of developing heart failure. All of this should be considered to improve the diagnosis [14, 15].
Sex Differences in Diagnostic Imaging Techniques in HF
Diagnostic imaging techniques are performed when HF is suspected. Among these, an electrocardiogram helps rule out HF, and its high sensitivity for detecting HF with reduced ejection fraction shows differences between sexes. However, sex dissimilarities probably result from hormonal factors, differences in the left ventricular mass, and wall thickness [16, 17]. Sokolow-Lyon index of left ventricular hypertrophy could predict HF hospitalization in females. In contrast, in males, it depends on inferolateral T-wave inversions [18]. This sex difference may be because inferolateral T-wave inversion is a more common electrocardiogram abnormality in HF due to type 1 myocardial infarction, the most common cause of HF in males [18].
Concerning chest radiography, no significant sex differences have been observed in adults hospitalized for acute HF [10•]. However, differences in some echocardiographic parameters, like left ventricular ejection fraction, have been found. The controversy regarding the accuracy of ejection fraction for the classification of HF patients is due to its variability depending on factors such as sex, age, and ethnicity [19]. Common cut-off points for “normal” at 50% could include elderly women with a relatively reduced ejection fraction for their age and sex [19, 20]. It is proposed that the “average” ejection fraction should be ≥ 55% for men and ≥ 60% for women [20]. Other authors consider sex differences in systolic dysfunction diagnosing when the left ventricular ejection fraction is < 52% in men and the left ventricular ejection fraction < 54% in women [19].
Regarding the use of echocardiography in women’s diagnosis, it should be considered that they have breast tissue and a higher prevalence of concave chest walls, which may hinder HF diagnosis [21, 22].
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance is recommended for the early diagnosis of patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction, primarily women, because it allows the characterization of HF with preserved ejection fraction etiology [23]. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance with late gadolinium enhancement reveals distinct phenotypes of female patients with ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy relative to male patients [24•].
Additionally, women with HF with preserved ejection fraction are more likely to experience changes in left ventricle remodeling and more severe diastolic dysfunction [14, 25, 26]. Left ventricle remodeling also differs between sexes. Women are more likely to develop concentric remodeling and HF with preserved ejection fraction, whereas men are more likely to develop eccentric remodeling and HF with reduced ejection fraction. Moreover, females have a higher systolic and diastolic left ventricular stiffness than males, which increases to a greater extent with age [7].
Finally, in terms of safety, particular care must be taken with the use of imaging techniques in women’s diagnosis, with echocardiography and non-contrast gadolinium cardiovascular magnetic resonance being the safest imaging techniques during pregnancy and lactation, and for breast tissue, due to the absence of ionizing agents and radiation [21, 22, 27].
Sex Differences in Biomarkers
Some biomarkers are vital in diagnosing, risk stratifying, and managing patients if HF is suspected. Some of the most outstanding HF biomarkers are natriuretic peptides, carbohydrate 125 (CA125), high-sensitivity troponins, galectin-3, the soluble isoform of suppression of tumorigenesis-2 (sST2), and osteopontin (Table 2) [28]. In 2019, The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry Committee on Clinical Applications of Cardiac Biomarkers recommended studying cardiac biomarkers, particularly natriuretic peptides, in various heterogeneous cohorts and stratifying upper reference limits by age and sex [29].
Sex Differences in Natriuretic Peptides
The levels of plasma natriuretic peptides should be measured if the diagnosis of HF is uncertain, NT-ProBNP being the best biomarker for the diagnosis and prognosis of HF [30, 31]. Several studies have shown that baseline NT-proBNP levels are higher in women than in men, especially in the case of premenopausal women [32, 33]. In a follow-up study of 78,657 individuals, it was seen that women had an average NT-proBNP concentration of almost twice the level found in men and that NT-proBNP was associated with a lower risk of HF in women than in men [34]. The exact mechanisms affecting these differences are unknown; one explanation could be the influence of sex hormones. It has been shown that testosterone is related to a lower level of NT-proBNP, while estrogens increase the marker levels, which could explain the difference between young men and women [35].
On the other hand, older ages were also associated with increasing levels of this marker. This age-related increment is higher in men than women, resulting in sex differences in NT-proBNP concentration decreasing with age. It is relevant to consider this since HF is more prevalent in older generations [33]. However, several studies have shown that the concentration remains higher in women than in men, regardless of age [36, 37•]. One recent cross-sectional study with 18,356 participants aged between 18 and 98 years found that, after adjusting for sociodemographic and cardiovascular risk factors including age, women still had a higher odds ratio of an elevated NT-proBNP (Odds Ratio:9.48; confidence interval 95%, 5.60–16.1) (Fig. 2) [37•].
The sex differences found in the general population NT-proBNP levels seem to fade in patients with HF. However, when comparing the levels of this marker between women and men with HF and the same left ventricular ejection fraction, it was found that women had moderately higher levels of NT-proBNP [30, 38, 39]. HF with preserved ejection fraction is more frequent in women than in men. This type of HF is related to lower levels of NT-proBNP than HF with reduced ejection fraction, which could partly explain why there are no sex differences in the general population with HF [30, 36, 40, 41]. Thus, special care should be taken with patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction because they often have NT-proBNP levels below the cut-off point and alone cannot exclude the diagnosis of HF in these patients.
A trial with 1936 participants recently showed how age‐specific and sex‐specific cut‐offs for NT‐proBNP improved the diagnosis of unrecognized HF. In this study, the following cut-off points were established at 125 pg/mL for men and 192 pg/mL for women under 60 years and 228 pg/mL for men, and 285 pg/mL for women over 60 years [42]. In addition, other comorbidities could alter NT-proBNP levels, such as obesity [19, 43]. Several articles have proven that the reduction associated with obesity is influenced by sex, being higher in women than in men [30, 33]. In the case of abdominal obesity, it was associated with minor levels of NT-proBNP in women but not in men. In women, visceral fat increases circulating testosterone levels, explaining a decrease in the ranks of NT-proBNP.
In contrast, in men, visceral adiposity is associated with reduced androgen levels (Fig. 2) [33]. In a cohort of 18,356 individuals, it has been shown that around 10% of young women without classic cardiovascular risk factors exceeded the cut-off point of 125 pg/mL, below which the diagnosis of HF became unlikely [37•]. Thus, rather than exclude the diagnosis of HF, this biomarker was used to establish an early diagnosis in an asymptomatic population. It would be necessary to take sex differences into account since there are healthy women whose NT-proBNP levels exceed the current cut-off points [37•, 38].
Sex Differences in CA125
Currently, indistinctly of the sex, levels of CA125 higher than 35 U/mL could indicate acute HF [44]. When using CA125 as a marker of HF, it is essential to consider that it can be elevated under physiological conditions such as pregnancy or menstruation [45]. It has been shown that CA125 values vary during the menstrual cycle, being higher during menstruation due to the inflammatory process induced by endometrial desquamation. However, several studies observed that despite the increase in CA125 concentration during menstruation, the mean values did not reach concentrations relevant for the diagnosis of HF, with mean concentrations of 12.2 U/ml and 16.6 U/ml [46, 47]. Also, the presence of diseases such as endometriosis, ovarian cancer, or inflammatory diseases of the peritoneum can cause an increase in this biomarker [45]. In the case of endometriosis, CA125 levels in the menstrual phase exceeded the threshold of 35 U/mL. Specifically, it was observed that the levels of CA125 increased from 12 to 35.8 U/mL, and this increase was even more pronounced in women with deep infiltration endometriosis, reaching levels of 65.8 U/mL [46]. In addition, 80% of women with epithelial ovarian cancer had CA125 levels higher than 35 U/mL [48]. Thus, although the clinical presentations are different, it is necessary to keep in mind that the values of this biomarker in HF may be like other common conditions in women that frequently are diagnosed late. Because of this, when in diagnostic doubt, not only between men and women but also between women, it is necessary to look for specific symptoms and perform other tests to confirm the diagnosis of elevated CA125, as other undiagnosed conditions can act as confounders, as in the case of endometriosis [47]. It would be necessary to investigate further how these conditions affect CA125 levels in the context of HF.
Sex Differences in Cardiac Troponins
High-sensitivity cardiac troponin levels, vary according to sex, with higher concentrations in men than in women [49, 50]. Even after the increase due to HF, it has been observed that men continue to have higher cardiac troponin levels than women. Indeed, it has been shown that establishing age‐specific and sex‐specific cut-off points for high-sensitivity troponin T could rule out subclinical HF in a general population. It was also observed that the set cut-off points of 14 ng/L for high-sensitivity troponins only applied to men under 50 [42]. Several factors may cause this difference. It is known that cardiac troponin concentrations are related to greater left ventricular mass, and women have less left ventricular mass than men [51]. Male-specific hormonal mechanisms, such as testosterone-induced hypertrophy and cardiomyocyte apoptosis, may favor higher cardiac troponin levels. In contrast, estrogen-induced suppression of cardiomyocyte apoptosis and subtler mechanisms of myocardial injuries, such as coronary microvascular disease, may influence lower cardiac troponin levels in women [28].
Sex Differences Among Other HF Biomarkers
In the general population, Galectin-3 levels may vary according to sex, with a slightly higher concentration in women than in men [28, 30, 52]. It was observed in a cohort of 947 individuals from the general population that there were significant differences with higher levels in women than in men (mean difference: 0.97 ng/ml; p < 0.001) [53]. A possible explanation for the observed differences could be the association between total body fat and galectin-3 levels, considering that for the same body mass index, women have 10% more body fat [30]. In patients with HF, there is an increase in galectin-3 levels, and sex differences are inconsistent [28, 30]. However, within a population of 22,756 individuals, galectin-3 was related to incident HF only in women (HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.22) [54].
Sex-related differences have been found in concentration levels of a soluble isoform of suppression of tumorigenesis-2 (sST2) in healthy populations, being higher in men than in age-matched women [30, 55, 56]. Similarly, in a cohort of 4540 patients with chronic HF, sST2 was also found to be higher in men than in women in the overall cohort (27 ng/mL (20–40) vs. 24 ng/mL (17–36), p < 0.001). In contrast, no differences have been found in the elderly or underweight patients and those with HF with midrange or preserved ejection fraction or history of atrial fibrillation [57]. It was also noted that sex-specific sST2 cut-offs were significantly more predictive of incident HF, even with an adjustment for cardiac biomarkers and comorbidities [58]. Some studies have seen a slight association between testosterone, estradiol, and levels of sST2 in men that could explain the differences. In addition, low levels of sST2 have also been observed in women with exogenous estrogen therapy. However, given that the abovementioned associations are not seen in every study, other hypotheses must be considered [28, 30]. Since sex hormones are produced by adipose tissue, it is also necessary to consider obesity as a relevant factor [59].
Osteopontin is under-expressed in the cardiac tissue, but it is overexpressed in those patients with HF [28, 60, 61]. It has been proposed that the concentration of osteopontin in plasma is higher in healthy men than in women, probably due to the suppression of osteopontin induced by estrogens in vascular smooth muscle. In addition, levels of osteopontin were higher in men than in women with stable coronary artery disease and were associated with adverse cardiovascular incidents such as HF [30, 62].
Conclusions
Regarding signs and symptoms of HF, there is conflicting evidence on sex differences. However, a predominance of dyspnea in women and peripheral edema in men has been observed. Based on left ventricular ejection fraction, there is controversy about when to diagnose HF in men and women due to its variability depending on factors such as sex. Regarding biomarkers, some studies have shown differences by sex, but there is insufficient evidence to establish different concentration ranges for men or women in the current clinical practice. The information provided by biomarkers should always be considered together with symptomatology and echocardiographic parameters. More studies evaluating these differences between men and women might provide ways to improve the diagnosis of HF patients.
Data Availability
All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper.
Abbreviations
- CA125:
-
Carbohydrate 125
- HF:
-
Heart failure
- NT-proBNP:
-
N-terminal Pro-B type natriuretic peptide
- sST2:
-
Soluble isoform of suppression of tumorigenesis-2
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as • Of importance.
Au M, Whitelaw S, Khan MS, Mamas MA, Mbuagbaw L, Mulvagh SL, et al. A systematic review of sex-specific reporting in heart failure clinical trials. JACC Adv. 2022;1(4):100079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2022.100079.
Conde-Martel A, Arkuch ME, Formiga F, Manzano-Espinosa L, Aramburu-Bodas O, González-Franco A, et al. Gender-related differences in clinical profile and outcome of patients with heart failure. Results of the RICA Registry. Rev Clin Esp. 2015;215(7):363–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rce.2015.02.010.
Kanic V, Kompara G, Vollrath M, Suran D, Kanic Z. Age-specific sex-based differences in anemia in patients with myocardial infarction. J Womens Health. 2019;28(7):1004–10. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2018.7211.
Díez-Villanueva P, Jiménez-Méndez C, Bonanad C, Ortiz-Cortés C, Barge-Caballero E, Goirigolzarri J, et al. Sex differences in the impact of frailty in elderly outpatients with heart failure. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:1000700. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.1000700.
Kane AE, Howlett SE. Sex differences in frailty: comparisons between humans and preclinical models. Mech Ageing Dev. 2021;198:111546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mad.2021.111546.
Bozkurt B, Khalaf S. Heart failure in women. Methodist DeBakey Cardiovasc J. 2017;13(4):216–23. https://doi.org/10.14797/mdcj-13-4-216.
Sullivan K, Doumouras BS, Santema BT, Walsh MN, Douglas PS, Voors AA, et al. Sex-specific differences in heart failure: pathophysiology, risk factors, management, and outcomes. Can J Cardiol. 2021;37(4):560–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2020.12.025.
de la Espriella R, Cobo M, Santas E, Verbrugge FH, Fudim M, Girerd N, et al. Assessment of filling pressures and fluid overload in heart failure: an updated perspective. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2022;S1885–5857(22):00207–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2022.07.009.
Lala A, Tayal U, Hamo CE, Youmans Q, Al-Khatib SM, Bozkurt B, et al. Sex differences in heart failure. J Card Fail. 2022;28(3):477–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2021.10.006.
• Espersen C, Campbell RT, Claggett B, Lewis EF, Groarke JD, Docherty KF, et al. Sex differences in congestive markers in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure. ESC Heart Fail. 2021;8(3):1784–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13300. This paper summarizes differences in markers of congestion, fundamental signs, and symptoms of heart failure.
Parry M, Van Spall HGC, Mullen KA, Mulvagh SL, Pacheco C, Colella TJF, et al. The Canadian women’s heart health alliance atlas on the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of cardiovascular disease in women — chapter 6: sex- and gender-specific diagnosis and treatment. CJC Open. 2022;4(7):589–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjco.2022.04.002.
Blumer V, Greene SJ, Wu A, Butler J, Ezekowitz JA, Lindenfeld JA, et al. Sex differences in clinical course and patient-reported outcomes among patients hospitalized for heart failure. JACC Heart Fail. 2021;9(5):336–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2020.12.011.
Kaur G, Lau E. Sex differences in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: from traditional risk factors to sex-specific risk factors. Womens Health (Lond). 2022;18:17455057221140208. https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057221140209.
Lam CSP, Arnott C, Beale AL, Chandramouli C, Hilfiker-Kleiner D, Kaye DM, et al. Sex differences in heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(47):3859–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz835.
Maas AHEM, Rosano G, Cifkova R, Chieffo A, Van Dijken D, Hamoda H, et al. Cardiovascular health after menopause transition, pregnancy disorders, and other gynecologic conditions: a consensus document from European cardiologists, gynecologists, and endocrinologists. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(10):967–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa1044.
Auscher S, Mohamed RA, Andersen TR, Overgaard K, Egstrup K. Does a normal electrocardiogram exclude heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction? Eur Heart J. 2022;43:ehac544.900. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.900.
Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JGF, Coats AJS, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2016 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic Heart failure: the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(27):2129–200. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehw128.
Haukilahti MAE, Kenttä TV, Tikkanen JT, Anttonen O, Aro AL, Kerola T, et al. Electrocardiographic risk markers for heart failure in women versus men. Am J Cardiol. 2020;130:70–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.06.018.
McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, Gardner RS, Baumbach A, Böhm M, et al. 2021 ESC guidelines for diagnosing and treating acute and chronic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2022;24(1):4–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.2333.
Lam CSP, Solomon SD. Classification of heart failure according to ejection fraction: JACC review topic of the week. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77(25):3217–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.04.070.
Kozor R, Abiodun A, Kott K, Manisty C. Noninvasive imaging in women with heart failure - diagnosis and insights into disease mechanisms. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2022;19(3):114–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11897-022-00545-2.
Mikail N, Rossi A, Bengs S, Haider A, Stähli BE, Portmann A, et al. Imaging of heart disease in women: review and case presentation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;50(1):130–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-022-05914-6.
Liu C, Ferrari VA, Han Y. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging and heart failure. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2021;23(4):35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-021-01464-9.
• Bivona DJ, Tallavajhala S, Abdi M, Oomen PJA, Gao X, Malhotra R, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance defines mechanisms of sex-based differences in outcomes following cardiac resynchronization therapy. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:1007806. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.1007806. The authors investigate different phenotypes of female patients with ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy relative to male patients.
Lundorff IJ, Sengeløv M, GodskJørgensen P, Pedersen S, Modin D, EskeBruun N, et al. Echocardiographic predictors of mortality in women with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11(11):e008031. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.118.008031.
Oneglia A, Nelson MD, Merz CNB. Sex differences in cardiovascular aging and heart failure. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2020;17(6):409–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11897-020-00487-7.
Leo I, Nakou E, de Marvao A, Wong J, Bucciarelli-Ducci C. Imaging in women with heart failure: sex-specific characteristics and current challenges. Card Fail Rev. 2022;8:e29. https://doi.org/10.15420/cfr.2022.17.
Suthahar N, Meems LMG, Ho JE, de Boer RA. Sex-related differences in contemporary biomarkers for heart failure: a review. Eur J Heart Fail. 2020;22(5):775–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1771.
Kavsak PA, Lam CSP, Saenger AK, Jaffe AS, Collinson P, Pulkki K, Omland T, Lefèvre G, Body R, Ordonez-Llanos J, Apple FS. Educational recommendations on selected analytical and clinical aspects of natriuretic peptides with a focus on heart failure: a report from the IFCC committee on clinical applications of cardiac bio-markers. Clin Chem. 2019;65(10):1221–7. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2019.306621.
Cediel G, Codina P, Spitaleri G, Domingo M, Santiago-Vacas E, Lupón J, et al. Gender-related differences in heart failure biomarkers. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;7:617705. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2020.617705.
Nakagawa Y, Nishikimi T, Kuwahara K. Atrial and brain natriuretic peptides: hormones secreted from the heart. Peptides. 2019;111:18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peptides.2018.05.012.
Cesaroni G, Mureddu GF, Agabiti N, Mayer F, Stafoggia M, Forastiere F, et al. Sex differences in factors associated with heart failure and diastolic left ventricular dysfunction: a cross-sectional population-based study. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):415. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10442-3.
Suthahar N, Meijers WC, Ho JE, Gansevoort RT, Voors AA, van der Meer P, et al. Sex-specific associations of obesity and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels in the general population. Eur J Heart Fail. 2018;20(8):1205–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1209.
Magnussen C, Niiranen TJ, Ojeda FM, Gianfagna F, Blankenberg S, Vartiainen E, et al. Sex-specific epidemiology of heart failure risk and mortality in Europe: results from the BiomarCaRE consortium. JACC Heart Fail. 2019;7(3):204–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2018.08.008.
Bachmann KN, Huang S, Lee H, Dichtel LE, Gupta DK, Burnett JC, et al. Effect of testosterone on natriuretic peptide levels. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(11):1288–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.12.062.
Mingels AMA, Kimenai DM. Sex-related aspects of biomarkers in cardiac disease. In: Advances in experimental medicine and biology. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018;1065:545–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77932-4_33.
• Welsh P, Campbell RT, Mooney L, Kimenai DM, Hayward C, Campbell A, et al. Reference ranges for NT-proBNP (N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide) and risk factors for higher NT-proBNP concentrations in a large general population cohort. Circ Heart Fail. 2022;15(10):e009427. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.121.009427. The authors investigate the levels of NT-proBNP in a population of 18.356 participants aged between 18 and 98 years and find that, after adjusting for sociodemographic and cardiovascular risk factors, including age, women still had a higher odds ratio of an elevated NT-proBNP, and 10% of young women had a concentration of NT-proBNP higher than the current cut-off in HF.
Daniels LB, Maisel AS. Cardiovascular biomarkers and sex: the case for women. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2015;12(10):588–96. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2015.105.
Hsich EM, Grau-Sepulveda MV, Hernandez AF, Eapen ZJ, Xian Y, Schwamm LH, et al. Relationship between sex, ejection fraction, and B-type natriuretic peptide levels in patients hospitalized with heart failure and associations with inhospital outcomes: findings from the get with the guideline-Heart Failure Registry. Am Heart J. 2013;166(6):1063–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2013.08.029.
Ebong IA, DeFilippis EM, Hamad EA, Hsich EM, Randhawa VK, Billia F, et al. Special considerations in the care of women with advanced heart failure. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:890108. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.890108.
Wettersten N. Biomarkers in acute heart failure: diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Int J Heart Fail. 2021;3(2):81–105. https://doi.org/10.36628/ijhf.2020.0036.
Averina M, Stylidis M, Brox J, Schirmer H. NT-ProBNP and high-sensitivity troponin T as screening tests for subclinical chronic heart failure in a general population. ESC Heart Fail. 2022;9(3):1954–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13906.
Pieske B, Tschöpe C, de Boer RA, Fraser AG, Anker SD, Donal E, et al. How to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the HFA-PEFF diagnostic algorithm: a consensus recommendation from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2019;40(40):3297–317. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz641.
Núñez J, de la Espriella R, Miñana G, Santas E, Llácer P, Núñez E, et al. Antigen carbohydrate 125 as a biomarker in heart failure: a narrative review. Eur J Heart Fail. 2021;23(9):1445–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.2295.
Dochez V, Caillon H, Vaucel E, Dimet J, Winer N, Ducarme G. Biomarkers and algorithms for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: CA125, HE4, RMI and ROMA, a review. J Ovarian Res. 2019;12(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-019-0503-7.
Kafali H, Artuc H, Demir N. Use of CA125 fluctuation during the menstrual cycle as a tool in the clinical diagnosis of endometriosis; a preliminary report. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;116(1):85–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.02.039.
Oliveira MAP, Raymundo TS, Soares LC, Pereira TRD, Demôro AVE. How to use CA-125 more effectively in the diagnosis of deep endometriosis. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:9857196. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9857196.
Asali A, Haj-Yehia N, Zehavi T, Perry T, Beiner M, Fishman A, et al. High grade, advanced, serous ovarian cancer with low serum CA125 levels. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;41(7):1107–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2020.1835844.
Jia X, Sun W, Hoogeveen RC, Nambi V, Matsushita K, Folsom AR, et al. High-sensitivity troponin I and incident coronary events, stroke, heart failure hospitalization, and mortality in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Circulation. 2019;139(23):2642–53. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038772.
Kimenai DM, Shah ASV, McAllister DA, Lee KK, Tsanas A, Meex SJR, et al. Sex differences in cardiac troponin I and T and the prediction of cardiovascular events in the general population. Clin Chem. 2021;67(10):1351–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvab109.
Aw TC, Huang W, Le TT, Pua CJ, Ang B, Phua SK, et al. High-sensitivity cardiac troponins in cardio-healthy subjects: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging study. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):7686. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-33850-9.
Haid ME, Zylla S, Paulista Markus MR, Friedrich N, Ewert R, Gläser S, et al. Sex-specific associations of cardiorespiratory fitness and galectin-3 in the general population. ESC Heart Fail. 2022;9(6):4240–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.14151.
Arora P, Agarwal Z, Venkatraman A, Callas P, Kissela BM, Jenny NS, et al. Galectin-3 and risk of ischaemic stroke: reasons for geographic and racial differences in stroke cohort. Eur J Neurol. 2017;24(12):1464–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.13440.
Suthahar N, Lau ES, Blaha MJ, Paniagua SM, Larson MG, Psaty BM, et al. Sex-specific associations of cardiovascular risk factors and biomarkers with incident heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(12):1455–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.07.044.
Kipke J, Margevicius S, Kityo C, Mirembe G, Buggey J, Yun CH, et al. Sex, HIV status, and measures of cardiac stress and fibrosis in Uganda. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10(11):e018767. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.685904.
Beetler DJ, Bruno KA, Di Florio DN, Douglass EJ, Shrestha S, Tschöpe C, et al. Sex and age differences in sST2 in cardiovascular disease. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023;9:1073814. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.1073814.
Vergaro G, Gentile F, Aimo A, Januzzi JL, Richards AM, Lam CSP, et al. Circulating levels and prognostic cut-offs of sST2, hs-cTnT, and NT-proBNP in women vs. men with chronic heart failure. ESC Heart Fail. 2022;9(4):2084–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13883.
Harmon DM, AbouEzzeddine OF, McKie PM, Scott CG, Saenger AK, Jaffe AS. Sex-specific cut-off values for soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (ST2) biomarker increase its cardiovascular prognostic value in the community. Biomarkers. 2021;26(7):639–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354750X.2021.1956590.
Zhao XY, Zhou L, Chen Z, Ji Y, Peng X, Qi L, et al. The obesity-induced adipokine sST2 exacerbates adipose Treg and ILC2 depletion and promotes insulin resistance. Sci Adv. 2020;6(20):eaay6191. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay6191.
Shirakawa K, Sano M. Osteopontin in cardiovascular diseases. Biomolecules. 2021;11(7):1047. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11071047.
Mamazhakypov A, Sartmyrzaeva M, Sarybaev ASh, Schermuly R, Sydykov A. Clinical and molecular implications of osteopontin in heart failure. Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2022;44(8):3573–97. https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb44080245.
Abdalrhim AD, Marroush TS, Austin EE, Gersh BJ, Solak N, Rizvi SA, et al. Plasma osteopontin levels and adverse cardiovascular outcomes in the PEACE trial. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0156965. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156965.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors, Daniela Maidana, Clara Bonanad-Lozano, Andrea Arroyo-Álvarez, Guillermo Barreres-Martín, Carles Muñoz-Alfonso, Cristina García-Pérez, Eva Maicas-Alcaine, Andrea Aparici-Redal, Victòria Freitas-Durks, and Alberto Esteban-Fernández, declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article contains no studies with human or animal subjects performed by authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Maidana, D., Bonanad, C., Ortiz-Cortés, C. et al. Sex-Related Differences in Heart Failure Diagnosis. Curr Heart Fail Rep 20, 254–262 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11897-023-00609-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11897-023-00609-x