Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in women, with reports of sex differences in risk profile and symptoms at presentation, which may impact provider assessments, referrals, and management. Despite targeted efforts on women’s cardiovascular (CV) health in the last several decades, significant gender-based differences persist in management trends and CV outcomes in stable heart disease, with evidence suggestive of delayed and mis-diagnosis of CAD, particularly in female patients with angina.1 Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) is a non-invasive imaging test with an established role in the diagnosis of angina in patients with moderate–high CV risk. We sought to compare the gender differences in baseline CV risk profile and the use of MPS among male and female patients with suspected or known CAD, in a tertiary, high-volume centre in Italy, over a period of 20 years from 2000 to 2020. The study was approved by the institutional review committee, and the subject gave informed consent. In this cross-sectional, observational, single-centre study of patients evaluated across 5 yearly intervals from 2000 to 2020, we evaluated 20 953 patients (31% women) with a mean age of 66.8 ± 9.2 years, who were referred for stress/rest myocardial scintigraphy for evaluation of stable angina.

Across the 5-yearl intervals from 2000 to 2020, men were more likely to be referred for MPS testing; however, there has been a consistent increase in the proportion of women referred for evaluation (Figure 1). This trend was persistent even during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019–20 among patients who presented with symptoms of stable angina. Over the last 20 years, women referred for evaluation were likely to have a significant decrease in the presence of ischaemic myocardium at risk, as identified by semi-quantitative scores including the summed rest score (SRS), the summed stress score (SSS), and a significant increase in ejection fraction (EF), while a consistent trend was not seen in men (Tables 1 and 2). In a sub-analysis (available on request) among women referred for evaluation, there is a significant increase in the prevalence of hypertension with time but no increase in the prevalence of smoking or diabetes. There were no significant differences in clinical presentation by gender.

Trends in referral patterns for myocardial perfusion scintigraphy by sex, over the last 20 years from 2000 to 2020.
Figure 1

Trends in referral patterns for myocardial perfusion scintigraphy by sex, over the last 20 years from 2000 to 2020.

Table 1

Trends in clinical risk and patterns of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in women, over the last 20 years from 2000 to 2020

2000–042004–092009–142014–192019–20P-valueP-value trend
Typical angina305 (27)809 (54)870 (50)885 (47)131 (49)<0.001<0.001
Dyspnoea749 (66)1161 (77)1432 (83)1583 (84)185 (70)<0.001<0.001
Family history635 (56)908 (61)850 (49)908 (48)128 (48)<0.001<0.001
Smoking history448 (40)666 (44)613 (35)810 (43)91 (34)<0.001
Diabetes531 (47)831 (55)848 (49)917 (49)117 (44)<0.0010.857
Hypertension613 (54)989 (66)1125 (65)1265 (67)142 (54)<0.001<0.001
Hypercholesterolaemia606 (53)873 (58)1002 (58)1055 (56)149 (56)0.130.605
Previous revascularization201 (18)261 (17)302 (17)320 (17)49 (18)0.9760.617
EF rest59 (48.2–65)61 (51–67)68 (60–74)70 (62–76)72 (65–75)<0.001<0.001
EF stress58 (46–65)60 (50–68)68 (60–74)69 (62–76)71 (64–78)<0.001<0.001
EDV rest101 (82.8–138)100 (77–132)75 (61–94)71 (59–87)65 (55–81)<0.001<0.001
EDV stress102 (82–140)94 (77–125)73 (60–91)69 (56–84)62 (52–78)<0.001<0.001
ESV rest42 (30–68)39 (26–65)24 (17–37)22 (15–32)18 (13–28)<0.001<0.001
ESV stress43 (29–73)37 (25–63)23 (17–35)21 (14–31)17 (13–30)<0.001<0.001
SSS8 (4–12)6 (3–12)4 (1–8)4 (2–7)3 (2–5)<0.001<0.001
SRS2 (0–5)1 (0–4)0 (0–3)0 (0–2)0 (0–1)<0.001<0.001
SDS4 (2–7)4 (2–7)3 (1–5)3 (1–5)3 (1.5–5)<0.001<0.001
2000–042004–092009–142014–192019–20P-valueP-value trend
Typical angina305 (27)809 (54)870 (50)885 (47)131 (49)<0.001<0.001
Dyspnoea749 (66)1161 (77)1432 (83)1583 (84)185 (70)<0.001<0.001
Family history635 (56)908 (61)850 (49)908 (48)128 (48)<0.001<0.001
Smoking history448 (40)666 (44)613 (35)810 (43)91 (34)<0.001
Diabetes531 (47)831 (55)848 (49)917 (49)117 (44)<0.0010.857
Hypertension613 (54)989 (66)1125 (65)1265 (67)142 (54)<0.001<0.001
Hypercholesterolaemia606 (53)873 (58)1002 (58)1055 (56)149 (56)0.130.605
Previous revascularization201 (18)261 (17)302 (17)320 (17)49 (18)0.9760.617
EF rest59 (48.2–65)61 (51–67)68 (60–74)70 (62–76)72 (65–75)<0.001<0.001
EF stress58 (46–65)60 (50–68)68 (60–74)69 (62–76)71 (64–78)<0.001<0.001
EDV rest101 (82.8–138)100 (77–132)75 (61–94)71 (59–87)65 (55–81)<0.001<0.001
EDV stress102 (82–140)94 (77–125)73 (60–91)69 (56–84)62 (52–78)<0.001<0.001
ESV rest42 (30–68)39 (26–65)24 (17–37)22 (15–32)18 (13–28)<0.001<0.001
ESV stress43 (29–73)37 (25–63)23 (17–35)21 (14–31)17 (13–30)<0.001<0.001
SSS8 (4–12)6 (3–12)4 (1–8)4 (2–7)3 (2–5)<0.001<0.001
SRS2 (0–5)1 (0–4)0 (0–3)0 (0–2)0 (0–1)<0.001<0.001
SDS4 (2–7)4 (2–7)3 (1–5)3 (1–5)3 (1.5–5)<0.001<0.001

EF, ejection fraction; EDV, end diastolic volume; ESV, end systolic volume; SSS, summed stress score; SRS, summed rest score; SDS, summed difference score.

Table 1

Trends in clinical risk and patterns of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in women, over the last 20 years from 2000 to 2020

2000–042004–092009–142014–192019–20P-valueP-value trend
Typical angina305 (27)809 (54)870 (50)885 (47)131 (49)<0.001<0.001
Dyspnoea749 (66)1161 (77)1432 (83)1583 (84)185 (70)<0.001<0.001
Family history635 (56)908 (61)850 (49)908 (48)128 (48)<0.001<0.001
Smoking history448 (40)666 (44)613 (35)810 (43)91 (34)<0.001
Diabetes531 (47)831 (55)848 (49)917 (49)117 (44)<0.0010.857
Hypertension613 (54)989 (66)1125 (65)1265 (67)142 (54)<0.001<0.001
Hypercholesterolaemia606 (53)873 (58)1002 (58)1055 (56)149 (56)0.130.605
Previous revascularization201 (18)261 (17)302 (17)320 (17)49 (18)0.9760.617
EF rest59 (48.2–65)61 (51–67)68 (60–74)70 (62–76)72 (65–75)<0.001<0.001
EF stress58 (46–65)60 (50–68)68 (60–74)69 (62–76)71 (64–78)<0.001<0.001
EDV rest101 (82.8–138)100 (77–132)75 (61–94)71 (59–87)65 (55–81)<0.001<0.001
EDV stress102 (82–140)94 (77–125)73 (60–91)69 (56–84)62 (52–78)<0.001<0.001
ESV rest42 (30–68)39 (26–65)24 (17–37)22 (15–32)18 (13–28)<0.001<0.001
ESV stress43 (29–73)37 (25–63)23 (17–35)21 (14–31)17 (13–30)<0.001<0.001
SSS8 (4–12)6 (3–12)4 (1–8)4 (2–7)3 (2–5)<0.001<0.001
SRS2 (0–5)1 (0–4)0 (0–3)0 (0–2)0 (0–1)<0.001<0.001
SDS4 (2–7)4 (2–7)3 (1–5)3 (1–5)3 (1.5–5)<0.001<0.001
2000–042004–092009–142014–192019–20P-valueP-value trend
Typical angina305 (27)809 (54)870 (50)885 (47)131 (49)<0.001<0.001
Dyspnoea749 (66)1161 (77)1432 (83)1583 (84)185 (70)<0.001<0.001
Family history635 (56)908 (61)850 (49)908 (48)128 (48)<0.001<0.001
Smoking history448 (40)666 (44)613 (35)810 (43)91 (34)<0.001
Diabetes531 (47)831 (55)848 (49)917 (49)117 (44)<0.0010.857
Hypertension613 (54)989 (66)1125 (65)1265 (67)142 (54)<0.001<0.001
Hypercholesterolaemia606 (53)873 (58)1002 (58)1055 (56)149 (56)0.130.605
Previous revascularization201 (18)261 (17)302 (17)320 (17)49 (18)0.9760.617
EF rest59 (48.2–65)61 (51–67)68 (60–74)70 (62–76)72 (65–75)<0.001<0.001
EF stress58 (46–65)60 (50–68)68 (60–74)69 (62–76)71 (64–78)<0.001<0.001
EDV rest101 (82.8–138)100 (77–132)75 (61–94)71 (59–87)65 (55–81)<0.001<0.001
EDV stress102 (82–140)94 (77–125)73 (60–91)69 (56–84)62 (52–78)<0.001<0.001
ESV rest42 (30–68)39 (26–65)24 (17–37)22 (15–32)18 (13–28)<0.001<0.001
ESV stress43 (29–73)37 (25–63)23 (17–35)21 (14–31)17 (13–30)<0.001<0.001
SSS8 (4–12)6 (3–12)4 (1–8)4 (2–7)3 (2–5)<0.001<0.001
SRS2 (0–5)1 (0–4)0 (0–3)0 (0–2)0 (0–1)<0.001<0.001
SDS4 (2–7)4 (2–7)3 (1–5)3 (1–5)3 (1.5–5)<0.001<0.001

EF, ejection fraction; EDV, end diastolic volume; ESV, end systolic volume; SSS, summed stress score; SRS, summed rest score; SDS, summed difference score.

Table 2

Trends in clinical risk and patterns of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in men, over the last 20 years from 2000 to 2020

2000–042004–092009–142014–192019–20P-valueP-value trend
Typical angina1144 (36)1559 (50)1957 (50)1680 (45)294 (55)<0.001<0.001
Dyspnoea1726 (55)2404 (78)3410 (87)3185 (85)491 (92)<0.001<0.001
Family history1352 (43)1799 (58)1944 (49)1784 (48)326 (61)<0.001<0.001
Smoking history1147 (37)1546 (50)1558 (40)1355 (36)253 (47)<0.0010.966
Diabetes1356 (43)2004 (65)2131 (54)1728 (46)356 (67)<0.0010.067
Hypertension1366 (44)1949 (63)2609 (66)2429 (65)290 (54)<0.001<0.001
Hypercholesterolaemia1835 (59)2236 (72)2471 (63)2004 (54)391 (73)<0.001<0.001
Previous revascularization533 (17)538 (17)660 (17)642 (17)82 (15)0.8080.546
EF rest60 (50–66)59 (49–66)58 (48–65)59 (51–66)60 (51–66)<0.0010.027
EF stress58 (47–66)58 (47–65)58 (48–64)58 (50–65)59 (50–65)0.0040.008
EDV rest103 (82–135)103 (83–136)110 (91–139)107 (89–134)106 (87.2–133)<0.001<0.001
EDV stress102 (81–135)101 (82–138)107 (89–135)103 (85.5–128)101 (83–126)<0.0010.017
ESV rest41 (28–67)42 (29–68)46 (32–70)43 (31–64)42 (30–61)<0.0010.299
ESV stress42 (28–70)43 (29–69.5)45 (33–67)42 (31–61)41 (29–60)<0.001<0.001
SSS8 (4–12)7 (4–12)6 (3–11)6 (3–10)6 (3–10)<0.001<0.001
SRS2 (0–5)2 (0–5)2 (0–6)1 (0–4)1 (0–3)0.0060.996
SDS5 (2–8)4 (2–7)3 (1–5.8)4 (2–6)4 (3–6)<0.001<0.001
2000–042004–092009–142014–192019–20P-valueP-value trend
Typical angina1144 (36)1559 (50)1957 (50)1680 (45)294 (55)<0.001<0.001
Dyspnoea1726 (55)2404 (78)3410 (87)3185 (85)491 (92)<0.001<0.001
Family history1352 (43)1799 (58)1944 (49)1784 (48)326 (61)<0.001<0.001
Smoking history1147 (37)1546 (50)1558 (40)1355 (36)253 (47)<0.0010.966
Diabetes1356 (43)2004 (65)2131 (54)1728 (46)356 (67)<0.0010.067
Hypertension1366 (44)1949 (63)2609 (66)2429 (65)290 (54)<0.001<0.001
Hypercholesterolaemia1835 (59)2236 (72)2471 (63)2004 (54)391 (73)<0.001<0.001
Previous revascularization533 (17)538 (17)660 (17)642 (17)82 (15)0.8080.546
EF rest60 (50–66)59 (49–66)58 (48–65)59 (51–66)60 (51–66)<0.0010.027
EF stress58 (47–66)58 (47–65)58 (48–64)58 (50–65)59 (50–65)0.0040.008
EDV rest103 (82–135)103 (83–136)110 (91–139)107 (89–134)106 (87.2–133)<0.001<0.001
EDV stress102 (81–135)101 (82–138)107 (89–135)103 (85.5–128)101 (83–126)<0.0010.017
ESV rest41 (28–67)42 (29–68)46 (32–70)43 (31–64)42 (30–61)<0.0010.299
ESV stress42 (28–70)43 (29–69.5)45 (33–67)42 (31–61)41 (29–60)<0.001<0.001
SSS8 (4–12)7 (4–12)6 (3–11)6 (3–10)6 (3–10)<0.001<0.001
SRS2 (0–5)2 (0–5)2 (0–6)1 (0–4)1 (0–3)0.0060.996
SDS5 (2–8)4 (2–7)3 (1–5.8)4 (2–6)4 (3–6)<0.001<0.001

EF, ejection fraction; EDV, end diastolic volume; ESV, end systolic volume; SSS, summed stress score; SRS, summed rest score; SDS, summed difference score.

Table 2

Trends in clinical risk and patterns of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in men, over the last 20 years from 2000 to 2020

2000–042004–092009–142014–192019–20P-valueP-value trend
Typical angina1144 (36)1559 (50)1957 (50)1680 (45)294 (55)<0.001<0.001
Dyspnoea1726 (55)2404 (78)3410 (87)3185 (85)491 (92)<0.001<0.001
Family history1352 (43)1799 (58)1944 (49)1784 (48)326 (61)<0.001<0.001
Smoking history1147 (37)1546 (50)1558 (40)1355 (36)253 (47)<0.0010.966
Diabetes1356 (43)2004 (65)2131 (54)1728 (46)356 (67)<0.0010.067
Hypertension1366 (44)1949 (63)2609 (66)2429 (65)290 (54)<0.001<0.001
Hypercholesterolaemia1835 (59)2236 (72)2471 (63)2004 (54)391 (73)<0.001<0.001
Previous revascularization533 (17)538 (17)660 (17)642 (17)82 (15)0.8080.546
EF rest60 (50–66)59 (49–66)58 (48–65)59 (51–66)60 (51–66)<0.0010.027
EF stress58 (47–66)58 (47–65)58 (48–64)58 (50–65)59 (50–65)0.0040.008
EDV rest103 (82–135)103 (83–136)110 (91–139)107 (89–134)106 (87.2–133)<0.001<0.001
EDV stress102 (81–135)101 (82–138)107 (89–135)103 (85.5–128)101 (83–126)<0.0010.017
ESV rest41 (28–67)42 (29–68)46 (32–70)43 (31–64)42 (30–61)<0.0010.299
ESV stress42 (28–70)43 (29–69.5)45 (33–67)42 (31–61)41 (29–60)<0.001<0.001
SSS8 (4–12)7 (4–12)6 (3–11)6 (3–10)6 (3–10)<0.001<0.001
SRS2 (0–5)2 (0–5)2 (0–6)1 (0–4)1 (0–3)0.0060.996
SDS5 (2–8)4 (2–7)3 (1–5.8)4 (2–6)4 (3–6)<0.001<0.001
2000–042004–092009–142014–192019–20P-valueP-value trend
Typical angina1144 (36)1559 (50)1957 (50)1680 (45)294 (55)<0.001<0.001
Dyspnoea1726 (55)2404 (78)3410 (87)3185 (85)491 (92)<0.001<0.001
Family history1352 (43)1799 (58)1944 (49)1784 (48)326 (61)<0.001<0.001
Smoking history1147 (37)1546 (50)1558 (40)1355 (36)253 (47)<0.0010.966
Diabetes1356 (43)2004 (65)2131 (54)1728 (46)356 (67)<0.0010.067
Hypertension1366 (44)1949 (63)2609 (66)2429 (65)290 (54)<0.001<0.001
Hypercholesterolaemia1835 (59)2236 (72)2471 (63)2004 (54)391 (73)<0.001<0.001
Previous revascularization533 (17)538 (17)660 (17)642 (17)82 (15)0.8080.546
EF rest60 (50–66)59 (49–66)58 (48–65)59 (51–66)60 (51–66)<0.0010.027
EF stress58 (47–66)58 (47–65)58 (48–64)58 (50–65)59 (50–65)0.0040.008
EDV rest103 (82–135)103 (83–136)110 (91–139)107 (89–134)106 (87.2–133)<0.001<0.001
EDV stress102 (81–135)101 (82–138)107 (89–135)103 (85.5–128)101 (83–126)<0.0010.017
ESV rest41 (28–67)42 (29–68)46 (32–70)43 (31–64)42 (30–61)<0.0010.299
ESV stress42 (28–70)43 (29–69.5)45 (33–67)42 (31–61)41 (29–60)<0.001<0.001
SSS8 (4–12)7 (4–12)6 (3–11)6 (3–10)6 (3–10)<0.001<0.001
SRS2 (0–5)2 (0–5)2 (0–6)1 (0–4)1 (0–3)0.0060.996
SDS5 (2–8)4 (2–7)3 (1–5.8)4 (2–6)4 (3–6)<0.001<0.001

EF, ejection fraction; EDV, end diastolic volume; ESV, end systolic volume; SSS, summed stress score; SRS, summed rest score; SDS, summed difference score.

This analysis, to the best of our knowledge, is the first to evaluate and report gender-based disparities in referral patterns for the evaluation of stable angina in a contemporary population in Italy, from 2000 to 2020. Over the last 20 years, the proportion of men referred for MPS in a tertiary centre for evaluation of stable angina was significantly higher compared with women. However, trends suggest an increase in proportion of women being referred for evaluation by nuclear testing for stable CAD, with similar trends of referral during the COVID-19 pandemic. Differences in clinical presentation, diagnostic accuracy of testing strategies, and a lack of sex-based risk stratification in the evaluation of CAD could potentially explain the differential patterns of evaluation of stable CAD. Few studies have examined disparities in provider referral patterns for evaluation of stable CAD in men and women, and these findings are relevant to understanding gender-based differences in risk stratification and diagnostic accuracy in suspected CAD and their subsequent effect on CV outcomes.2 A sub-analysis of the PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial elucidated that a patient’s sex could influence the entire diagnostic pathway for stable CAD, from presentation, provider referrals for non-invasive testing, and their effect on prognosis.3 While our results may be affected by realistic rates of prevalence of CAD by sex and age, data suggest that the lifetime risk of CAD is equivalent for men and women. Gender-specific approaches to the evaluation of CAD, specifically understanding factors that influence diagnostic testing, may improve the current landscape of differential CV outcomes in women compared with men.

Data availability

Data and statistical analysis are available for review, upon reasonable request.

Lead author biography

graphicDr Suvasini Lakshmanan is a cardiology fellow-in-training at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, USA. Dr Suvasini Lakshmanan completed her medical school training at the Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, India, and her internal medicine residency at the University of Massachusetts. She earned a Master of Science in Clinical and Translational Research at Brown University School of Public Health. Thereafter, she completed her advanced imaging/cardiac CT fellowship at the Lundquist Institute at Harbor UCLA. Her research interests lie at the intersection of cardiac imaging/cardiac CT, cardiovascular prevention, and their application in clinical trials. To this effect, she is pursuing a part-time master's degree in clinical trials at Oxford University, UK. Dr Lakshmanan has served on the board of the American Society of Preventive Cardiology and will serve as Chair of the AHA FIT programming committee.

References

1

Aggarwal
 
NR
,
Patel
 
HN
,
Mehta
 
LS
,
Sanghani
 
RM
,
Lundberg
 
GP
,
Lewis
 
SJ
 et al.  
Sex differences in ischemic heart disease: advances, obstacles, and next steps
.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes
 
2018
;
11
:
e004437
.

2

Miller
 
TD
,
Roger
 
VL
,
Hodge
 
DO
,
Hopfenspirger
 
MR
,
Bailey
 
KR
,
Gibbons
 
RJ
.
Gender differences and temporal trends in clinical characteristics, stress test results and use of invasive procedures in patients undergoing evaluation for coronary artery disease
.
J Am Coll Cardiol
 
2001
;
38
:
690
7
.

3

Hemal
 
K
,
Pagidipati
 
NJ
,
Coles
 
A
,
Dolor
 
RJ
,
Mark
 
DB
,
Pellikka
 
PA
 et al.  
Sex differences in demographics, risk factors, presentation, and noninvasive testing in stable outpatients with suspected coronary artery disease: insights from the PROMISE trial
.
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging
 
2016
;
9
:
337
46
.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.02.001

Author notes

Conflict of interest: None declared.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected] for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact [email protected].