Transgender Women Exhibit a Distinct Stress Echocardiography Profile Compared to Age-Matched Cisgender Counterparts: The Mayo Clinic Women's Heart Clinic Experience

Stress echocardiography (SE) is an important modality in cardiovascular risk stratification and obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) assessment. Binary sex-based parameters are classically used for interpretation of these studies, even among transgender women (TGW). CAD is a leading cause of mo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography 2024-05
Hauptverfasser: Adel, Fadi, Walsh, Connor D, Bretzman, John, Sang, Philip, Lara-Breitinger, Kyla, Mahowald, Madeline, Maheshwari, Arvind, Scott, Christopher G, Lee, Alexander T, Davidge-Pitts, Caroline J, Pellikka, Patricia A, Mankad, Rekha
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Stress echocardiography (SE) is an important modality in cardiovascular risk stratification and obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) assessment. Binary sex-based parameters are classically used for interpretation of these studies, even among transgender women (TGW). CAD is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in this population. Yet, it remains unclear whether TGW exhibit a distinct stress testing profile from their cisgender counterparts. Using a matched case-control study design, we compared the echocardiographic stress testing profiles of TGW (n=43) with those of matched cisgender men (CGM, n=84) and cisgender women (CGW, n=86) at a single center. Relevant data, including demographics, comorbidities, and cardiac testing data were manually extracted from the patients' charts. The prevalence of hypertension and dyslipidemia was similar between TGW and CGW and lower than that of CGM (p= .003 and .009, respectively). The majority of comorbidities and lab values were similar. On average, TGW had higher heart rates than CGM (p=.002) and had lower blood pressures than CGM and CGW (p
ISSN:1097-6795