Cardiometabolic Risk and Female Sexuality-Part II. Understanding (and Overcoming) Gender Differences: The Key Role of an Adequate Methodological Approach

Although basic science and clinical research indicate that the vascular physiopathology of male and female sexual dysfunction (FSD) is similar, to date the association between FSD and cardiovascular (CV) diseases has been only marginally explored. AIM: To discuss the potential reasons for differences in the role of CV diseases and risk factors in sexual function in women vs men in the 2nd part of a 2-part review. METHODS: A thorough literature search of peer-reviewed publications on the topic was performed using the PubMed database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We present a review of the main factors that could account for this gap: (i) actual physiologic discrepancies and (ii) factors related to the inadequacy of the methodologic approach used to investigate CV risk in patients with FSD. A summary of the available methods to assess female sexual response, focusing on genital vascularization, is reported. RESULTS: The microanatomy and biochemistry of the male and female peripheral arousal response are similar; in contrast, there are differences in the interplay between the metabolic profile and sex steroid milieu, in the relative weighting of cardiometabolic risk factors in the pathogenesis of CV disease, and their clinical presentation and management. CV diseases in women are under-recognized, leading to less aggressive treatment strategies and poorer outcomes. Moreover, evaluation of hemodynamic events that regulate the female sexual response has thus far been plagued by methodologic problems. CONCLUSION: To clarify whether sexuality can be a mirror for CV health in women, the female genital vascular district should be objectively assessed with standardized and validated methods. Studies designed to establish normative values and longitudinal intervention trials on the effect of the treatment of CV risk factors on FSD are urgently needed.