Skip to main content
PMC home page
Clinical Cardiology logoLink to Clinical Cardiology
. 2006 Dec 5;27(5):291–294. doi: 10.1002/clc.4960270511

The importance of gender on coronary artery size: In‐vivo assessment by intravascular ultrasound

Sang‐Gon Kim 1, Sue Apple 1, Gary S Mintz 2, Taya McMillan 1, Daniel A Caños 1, Akiko Maehara 1, Neil J Weissman 1,✉
PMCID: PMC6654584  PMID: 15188946

Abstract

Background: It remains controversial whether women have smaller coronary arteries than men because of a gender‐specific trait, or whether the observed differences are primarily due to a difference in body size. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), with its ability to provide unique coronary images that allow precise measurement of arterial size in vivo, is ideally suited to address this issue.

Hypothesis: Female gender, independent of body size, is associated with smaller coronary artery size as measured by intracoronary ultrasound.

Methods: Intravascular ultrasound images of normal left main arteries were identified retrospectively from a single center database. Associations between demographic and clinical characteristics (including body size) and left main coronary dimensions were assessed with univariant and multivariate regression analyses.

Results: We identified 257 completely normal left main arteries. Mean left main arterial areas were smaller in women than in men (17.2 vs. 20.6 mm2, p < 0.001), as were mean luminal areas (14.0 vs. 16.7 mm2, p < 0.001). By multiple regression analysis, the independent predictors of left main lumen were body surface area (p < 0.001) and gender (p = 0.003).

Conclusions: Body surface area and gender are both independent predictors of coronary artery size, although body size has a greater influence than gender.

Keywords: atherosclerosis, imaging, hormone, estrogen, gender, ultrasonics

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (27.9 KB).

References

  • 1. Arnold AM, Mick MJ, Piedmonte MR, Simpfendorfer C: Gender differences for coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol 1994; 74: 18–21 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Bell MR, Grill DE, Garratt KN, Berger PB, Gersh BJ, Holmes DR: Long‐term outcome of women compared with men after successful coronary angioplasty. Circulation 1995; 91: 2876–2881 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Christakis GT, Weisel RD, Buth KJ, Fremes SE, Rao V, Panagiotopoulos KP, Ivanov J, Goldman BS, David TE: Is body size the cause for poor outcomes of coronary artery bypass operations in women? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1995; 110: 1344–1358 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Fisher LD, Kennedy JW, Davis KB, Maynard C, Fritz JK, Kaiser G, Myers WO: Association of sex, physical size, and operative mortality after coronary artery bypass in the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1982; 84: 334–341 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Kennedy JW, Kaiser GC, Fisher LD, Fritz JK, Myers W, Mudd JG, Ryan TJ: Clinical and angiographic predictors of operative mortality from the collaborative study in coronary artery surgery (CASS). Circulation 1981; 63: 793–802 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Malenka DJ, O'Connor GT, Quinton H, Wennberg D, Robb JF, Shubrooks S: Differences in outcomes between women and men associated with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation 1996; 92 (suppl II):II‐99–II‐99 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. O'Connor GT, Morton JR, Diehl MJ, Olmstead EM, Coffin LH, Levy DG, Maloney CT, Plume SK, Nugent W, Malenka DJ, Hernandez F, Clough R, Birkmeyer J, Marrin CAS, Leavitt BJ: Differences between men and women in hospital mortality associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation 1993; 88 (part 1): 2104–2110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Peterson ED, Lansky AJ, Kramer J, Anstrom K, Lanzilotta MJ: Effect of gender on the outcomes of contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2001; 88: 359–364 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Sousa AGMR, Mattos LAP, Costa MA, Netto CMC, Paes AT, Saad J, Labrunie A, Abizaid A, Botelho R, Bueno R, Martinez E, Labrunie P, Gottchall C, Constantini C, Sousa JEMR: In‐hospital outcome after stenting in women compared to men. Results from the registry of the Brazilian Society of Interventional Cardiology: CENIC (abstr). J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37 (suppl2): 16A [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Weintraub WS, Wenger NK, Kosinski AS, Douglas JS, Jr , Liberman HA, Morris DC, King SB III: Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in women compared with men. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994; 24: 81–90 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Foley DP, Melkert R, Serruys PW, on behalf of the CARPORT, MERCATOR, MARCATOR, and PARK investigators : Influence of coronary vessel size on renarrowing process and late angiographic outcome after successful balloon angioplasty. Circulation 1994; 90: 1239–1251 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Hoffman R, Mintz GS, Mehran R, Pichard AD, Kent KM, Satler LF, Popma JJ, Wu H, Leon MB: Intravascular ultrasound predictors of angiographic restenosis in lesions treated with Palmaz‐Schatz stents. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31: 43–49 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Mintz GS, Popma JJ, Pichard AD, Kent KM, Satler LF, Chuang C, Griffin J, Leon MB: Intravascular ultrasound predictors of restenosis after percutaneous transcatheter coronary revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996; 27: 1678–1687 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Saucedo JF, Popma JJ, Kennard ED, Talley JD, Lansky A, Leon MB, Baim DS, for the NACI Investigators : Relation of coronary artery size to 1 year clinical events after new device angioplasty of native coronary arteries (A new approach to coronary intervention [NACI] registry report). Am J Cardiol 2000; 85: 166–171 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Dodge JT Jr, Brown BG, Bolson EL, Dodge HT: Lumen diameter of normal human coronary arteries. Circulation 1992; 86: 232–246 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Sheifer SE, Canos MR, Weinfurt KP, Arora UK, Mendelsohn FO, Gersh BJ, Weissman NJ: Sex differences in coronary artery size assessed by intravascular ultrasound. Am Heart J 2000; 139: 649–653 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Roberts CS, Roberts WC: Cross‐sectional area of the proximal portions of the 3 major epicardial coronary arteries in 98 necropsy patients with different coronary events. Relationship to heart weight, age and sex. Circulation 1980; 62: 953–959 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Hutchins GM, Bulkley BH, Miner MM, Boitnott JK: Correlation of age and heart weight with tortuosity and caliber of normal human coronary arteries. Am Heart J 1977; 94: 196–202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. MacAlpin RN, Abbasi AS, Grollman JH, Eber L: Human coronary artery size during life. Radiology 1973; 108: 567–576 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Leung W‐H, Stadius ML, Alderman EL: Determinants of normal coronary artery dimensions inhumans. Circulation 1991; 84: 2294–2306 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Lewis BS, Gotsman MS: Relation between coronary artery size and left ventricular wall mass. Br Heart J 1973; 35: 1150–1153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Mintz GS, Kent KM, Pichard AD, Satler LF, Popma JJ, Leon MB: Intravascular ultrasound imaging in the evaluation and interventional treatment of coronary artery disease In Interventional Cardiovascular Medicine, 2nd ed. (Eds. Stack RS, Roubin GS, O'Neill WW.), p. 491–511. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Kornowski R, Lansky AJ, Mintz GS, Kent KM, Pichard AD, Satler LF, Bucher TA, Popma JJ, Leon MB: Comparison of men versus women in cross‐sectional area luminal narrowing, quantity of plaque, presence of calcium in plaque, and lumen location in coronary arteries by intravascular ultrasound in patients with stable angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol 1997; 79: 1601–1605 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Sheifer SE, Arora UK, Gersh BJ, Weissman NJ: Sex differences in morphology of coronary artery plaque assessed by intravascular ultrasound. Coron Artery Dis 2001; 12: 17–20 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Mintz GS, Nissen SE, Anderson WD, Bailey SR, Erbel R, Fitzgerald PJ, Pinto FJ, Rosenfield K, Siegel RJ, Tuzcu EM, Yock PG: ACC Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Standards for the acquisition, measurement and reporting of intravascular ultrasound studies: A report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents (Committee to Develop a Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Standards for Acquisition, Measurement and Reporting of Intravascular Ultrasound Studies [IVUS]). J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37: 1478–1492 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Vuille C, Weyman AE: Left ventricle I: General considerations, assessment of chamber size and function In Principles and Practice of Echocardiography, 2nd ed. (Ed. Weyman AE.), p. 602 Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Gardin JM, Savage DD, Ware JH, Henry WL: Effect of age, sex, and body surface area on echocardiographic left ventricular wall mass in normal subjects. Hypertension 1987; 9 (suppl II):II36–39 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Gutsell HP, Rembold CM: Growth of the human heart relative to body surface area. Am J Cardiol 1990; 65: 662–668 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Johnson MR: A normal coronary artery: What size is it? Circulation 1992; 86: 331–333 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. O'Keefe JH, Owen RM, Bove A: Influence of left ventricular mass on coronary artery cross‐sectional area. Am J Cardiol 1987; 59: 1395–1397 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Mendelsohn ME, Karas RH: Mechanisms of disease: The protective effects of estrogen on the cardiovascular system. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 1801–1811 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Schwertz DW, Penckofer S: Sex differences and the effects of sex hormones on hemostasis and vascular reactivity. Heart Lung 2001; 30: 401–426 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Clinical Cardiology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES