Coronary Artery Disease in Women: Getting to Know Gender Related Disparities

Abstract Coronary artery disease (CAD) and ischemic heart disease (IHD) are often indistinctly used terms. Both combined have generated, over the past years, concerns about sex disparities in their presentation. From an epidemiological perspective, females have several disadvantages regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CAD. Most of the general cardiovascular risk factors affect women more frequently, or with a higher morbidity and mortality association. Besides, atypical manifestations of the disease and uncommon forms of CAD represent a diagnostic challenge for clinicians. Even if current treatments for CAD have no apparent sex bias, women representation in clinical trials and treatment patterns analyzed in clinical practice refuse this statement. Several disparities are caused by inevitable sex-particularities, but many of them are more social, cultural, and dogmatic beliefs that have to be addressed and overhaul.

Positron emission tomography and its role in the assessment of vulnerable plaques in comparison to other imaging modalities.

The diagnosis and management of vulnerable plaques are topics of high interest in the cardiovascular field. Although imaging techniques like computed tomography angiography (MCTA) and ultrasonography (USG) can structurally evaluate atherosclerotic plaques, they are limited in examining internal cellular processes. Positron emission tomography (PET) molecular imaging, on the other hand, can highlight these cellular processes, including inflammation, angiogenesis, and lipid oxidation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is also a valuable non-invasive imaging technique that can provide detailed anatomical and functional information on the cardiovascular system. In this review, we compare the advantages and drawbacks of MCTA, USG and MRI imaging techniques with PET molecular imaging in evaluating vulnerable plaques. PET imaging allows physicians to measure different pathophysiological events within the plaque using intravenous radiotracers, of which 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) is the most validated one. By using 18F-FDG, physicians can understand the formation of the plaque, assess the accumulation of macrophages, and predict major cardiovascular events. However, some limitations exist in using 18F-FDG, including myocardial uptake and low sensitivity in imaging coronary arteries. We also mention other radiotracers that can help in evaluating vulnerable plaques, including 18F-NaF. Although PET imaging is still challenging, it has shown promise in evaluating vulnerable plaques and could be used to intervene in high-risk patients before major cardiovascular events occur.