ClearMed
All Cardiology BriefingsEuropean Heart Journal
CardiologyClinical Practice6 min read

Sex differences in cardiovascular disease burden, risk factors, and disease spectrum in Europe: a global burden of disease 2023 analysis within the ESC Atlas framework

Cardiovascular disease burden further varied widely across countries and disparities affected women more strongly than men, with an approximately three-fold difference between the lowest- and highest-incidence countries in women, compared with a two-fold difference in men, and even larger disparities in mortality and premature mortality (up to 25-fold in women).

Published in European Heart JournalClinical evidence review
3/5 Observational
Evidence Meter · 3/5

Real-World Observation

Finds meaningful patterns in human health records or cohorts, though observational data cannot prove direct cause.

Source

Clinical Outcome

19%

In particular, the substantial contribution of non-ischaemic conditions and maternal hypertensive disorders to the burden in women, alongside distinct patterns of risk exposure and wider geographic disparities, underscore the importance of adopting a life-course and sex- and gender-informed approach to prevention and policy.

What Changes?

Cardiology · Clinical Practice

Current Standard

These findings challenge conventional approaches that treat CVD as a homogeneous condition.

New Finding

Major differences were also apparent in risk profiles, particularly for behavioural risk factors-with summary exposure values of tobacco and alcohol being 10%-20% points higher in men than women; contrasting with cardiometabolic factors, such as high body mass index and low physical activity, that were often 5%-15% points higher in women than men, and more modest differences in environmental and biological risks, including air pollution, fasting glucose, or cholesterol.

3 Key Takeaways

Plain English Summary
  1. 01Core Finding

    Sex-specific patterns in CVD burden and risk factor exposure across 55 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) member countries were examined using data from the 2023 Global Burden of Disease study.

  2. 02Study Evidence

    Tested in a standard-of-care clinical practice · clinical evidence review at the clinical practice stage.

  3. 03Practical Meaning

    Maternal hypertensive disorders substantially shaped both the scale and composition of CVD burden in women, accounting for 25% of incident CVD in women and exhibiting substantial geographic variation, with up to 18-fold differences in across countries.

What This Means for You

Major differences were also apparent in risk profiles, particularly for behavioural risk factors-with summary exposure values of tobacco and alcohol being a clinically meaningful level-a clinically meaningful level points higher in men than women; contrasting with cardiometabolic factors, such as high body mass index and low physical activity, that were often a clinically meaningful level-1a clinically meaningful level points higher in women than men, and more modest differences in environmental and biological risks, including air pollution, fasting glucose, or cholesterol. disease burden further varied widely across countries and disparities affected women more strongly than men, with an approximately three-fold difference between the lowest- and highest- countries in women, compared with a two-fold difference in men, and even larger disparities in mortality and premature mortality (substantially in women).

Maternal hypertensive disorders substantially shaped both the scale and composition of CVD burden in women, accounting for a clinically meaningful level of incident CVD in women and exhibiting substantial geographic variation, with substantially differences in across countries. These findings challenge conventional approaches that treat CVD as a homogeneous condition.

In particular, the substantial contribution of non-ischaemic conditions and maternal hypertensive disorders to the burden in women, alongside distinct patterns of risk exposure and wider geographic disparities, underscore the importance of adopting a life-course and sex- and gender-informed approach to prevention and policy.

The Discovery

Despite growing recognition of sex disparities in disease (CVD), contemporary, harmonized analyses of sex-specific burden in the European region that could inform targeted prevention strategies, remain limited. Sex-specific patterns in CVD burden and risk factor exposure across 55 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) member countries were examined using data from the 2023 Global Burden of Disease study. Risk factor exposure was quantified using age-sex-standardized summary exposure values for 10 established risk factors. Disease and mortality for major CVD categories, including maternal hypertensive disorders, were estimated by calculating age-sex-standardized rates per 100 000 person-years using the 2013 European Standard Population. Analyses were performed by sex at country, regional, and ESC-wide levels and over time (1990-2023). In 2023, in the ESC region, the overall CVD burden was broadly similar in men and women, with women accounting for 55% (6.0 million) of cases and 50% of deaths (1.5 million). This apparent parity, however, concealed marked sex differences in disease composition, risk exposure, and geographic disparities. Compared with men, women had a lower proportion of CVD due to ischaemic heart disease (21% vs 38%) and a higher contribution from peripheral arterial disease (23% vs a clinically meaningful level).

How It Works, Simply

This cardiology research focuses on cholesterol. Researchers evaluated it using a standard-of-care clinical practice · Clinical evidence review at the clinical practice stage of medical research.

3 Key Takeaways

Clinical Takeaways
  1. 01Core Finding

    Sex-specific patterns in CVD burden and risk factor exposure across 55 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) member countries were examined using data from the 2023 Global Burden of Disease study.

  2. 02Study Evidence

    Tested in a standard-of-care clinical practice · clinical evidence review at the clinical practice stage.

  3. 03Practical Meaning

    Maternal hypertensive disorders substantially shaped both the scale and composition of CVD burden in women, accounting for 25% of incident CVD in women and exhibiting substantial geographic variation, with up to 18-fold differences in across countries.

Key Numbers

Quantitative Study Readout
25-fold
Clinical Outcome
18-fold
Relative Improvement
01

Biological Mechanism & Study Design

Study Design & Cohort

Clinical evidence review

Standard-of-care clinical practice · Clinical evidence review · Clinical Practice

Biological Pathway & Modality

cholesterol

Intervention: Sex differences in disease burden, risk factors, and disease spectrum

02

Experimental Findings & Endpoints

Despite growing recognition of sex disparities in disease (CVD), contemporary, harmonized analyses of sex-specific burden in the European region that could inform targeted prevention strategies, remain limited.

Sex-specific patterns in CVD burden and risk factor exposure across 55 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) member countries were examined using data from the 2023 Global Burden of Disease study. Risk factor exposure was quantified using age-sex-standardized summary exposure values for 10 established risk factors.

Disease and mortality for major CVD categories, including maternal hypertensive disorders, were estimated by calculating age-sex-standardized rates per 100 000 person-years using the 2013 European Standard Population. Analyses were performed by sex at country, regional, and ESC-wide levels and over time (1990-2023).

In 2023, in the ESC region, the overall CVD burden was broadly similar in men and women, with women accounting for 55% (6.0 million) of cases and 50% of deaths (1.5 million). This apparent parity, however, concealed marked sex differences in disease composition, risk exposure, and geographic disparities.

Compared with men, women had a lower proportion of CVD due to ischaemic heart disease (21% vs 38%) and a higher contribution from peripheral arterial disease (23% vs a clinically meaningful level).

03

Clinical Translation & Practice Context

Major differences were also apparent in risk profiles, particularly for behavioural risk factors-with summary exposure values of tobacco and alcohol being a clinically meaningful level-a clinically meaningful level points higher in men than women; contrasting with cardiometabolic factors, such as high body mass index and low physical activity, that were often a clinically meaningful level-1a clinically meaningful level points higher in women than men, and more modest differences in environmental and biological risks, including air pollution, fasting glucose, or cholesterol.

disease burden further varied widely across countries and disparities affected women more strongly than men, with an approximately three-fold difference between the lowest- and highest- countries in women, compared with a two-fold difference in men, and even larger disparities in mortality and premature mortality (substantially in women).

Maternal hypertensive disorders substantially shaped both the scale and composition of CVD burden in women, accounting for a clinically meaningful level of incident CVD in women and exhibiting substantial geographic variation, with substantially differences in across countries. These findings challenge conventional approaches that treat CVD as a homogeneous condition.

In particular, the substantial contribution of non-ischaemic conditions and maternal hypertensive disorders to the burden in women, alongside distinct patterns of risk exposure and wider geographic disparities, underscore the importance of adopting a life-course and sex- and gender-informed approach to prevention and policy.

03

The Bottom Line · Clinical Pearl

“In particular, the substantial contribution of non-ischaemic conditions and maternal hypertensive disorders to the burden in women, alongside distinct patterns of risk exposure and wider geographic disparities, underscore the importance of adopting a life-course and sex- and gender-informed approach to cardiovascular prevention and policy.”

Published in European Heart Journal · Current Stage: Clinical Practice

Practical Next Step

Questions for Your Next Doctor Visit

  1. 1Based on my health history, do these cardiology findings (standard-of-care clinical practice · Clinical evidence review in cardiology care) apply to my situation?
  2. 2How do the potential benefits of this approach compare with the standard care I'm currently using?
  3. 3Given the study's key limitation (benefits and risks vary by individual health history — discuss with a healthcare professional.), what risks or follow-up steps should we watch for?
Cardiology · Clinical Practice
Study Type
Clinical evidence review

Standard-of-care clinical practice · Clinical evidence review

Evidence Score
3/5 · Real-World Observation
Evidence Meter · 3/5

Real-World Observation

Finds meaningful patterns in human health records or cohorts, though observational data cannot prove direct cause.

Finds meaningful patterns in human health records or cohorts, though observational data cannot prove direct cause.

Who It Applies To
Standard-of-care clinical practice · Clinical evidence review in cardiology care
Intervention & Mechanism
Sex differences in cardiovascular disease burden, risk factors, and disease spectrum

LDL cholesterol

Key Limitation
Benefits and risks vary by individual health history — discuss with a healthcare professional.

Translational Stage

LEVEL 1 · Clinical Practice

Classified as Clinical evidence review along the clinical evidence continuum

  1. Lab & Discovery
  2. Early Trials
  3. Human Evidence
  4. 4Clinical PracticeActive

Indexed Clinical Entities

Original Publication & AMA Citation

Sex differences in cardiovascular disease burden, risk factors, and disease spectrum in Europe: a global burden of disease 2023 analysis within the ESC Atlas framework. European Heart Journal. Published 2026;Oct 23. Accessed November 15, 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42912409/

European Heart Journal

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42912409/

Read Original Paper

Continue Reading

Related in Cardiology

View all Cardiology briefings →
CARDIOLOGY · CLINICAL PRACTICE

AI Identifies Hidden Heart Signal for Sudden Death Risk

AI can uncover subtle cardiac risks in routine scans, improving sudden death prediction. This discovery could enable earlier identification of thousands at risk for sudden cardiac death, allowing for timely interventions.

3/5 Observational
Evidence Meter · 3/5

Real-World Observation

Finds meaningful patterns in human health records or cohorts, though observational data cannot prove direct cause.

1 min readScienceDaily
CARDIOLOGY · CLINICAL PRACTICE

Senior Statins: Short-Term Safety, Long-Term Questions

While stopping statins after 70 might initially seem safe for those without prior heart events, the long-term risks suggest a careful discussion with your doctor is essential. For years, the medical community has debated the optimal duration of statin therapy, especially as patients enter advanced age.

3/5 Observational
Evidence Meter · 3/5

Real-World Observation

Finds meaningful patterns in human health records or cohorts, though observational data cannot prove direct cause.

1 min readScienceDaily
Cardiology editorial photograph for Dietary Protein Source Linked to Testosterone Levels in Men
CARDIOLOGY · CLINICAL PRACTICE

Dietary Protein Source Linked to Testosterone Levels in Men

For men, the source of dietary protein—animal (especially dairy) versus plant—appears to correlate with significant differences in circulating testosterone levels, suggesting a potential modifiable lifestyle factor. Currently, dietary interventions specifically differentiating between animal and plant protein for modulating testosterone levels are not a standard component of clinical practice beyond general healthy eating guidelines.

3/5 Observational
Evidence Meter · 3/5

Real-World Observation

Finds meaningful patterns in human health records or cohorts, though observational data cannot prove direct cause.

1 min readScienceDaily