4.7 Review

Sex differences in particulate air pollution-related cardiovascular diseases: A review of human and animal evidence

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 884, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163803

关键词

Air pollution; Particulate matter; Cardiovascular disease; Sex difference

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality globally. Sex differences in CVD and the impact of air pollution-related CVD on different sexes have been neglected. This review comprehensively evaluates the sex differences in air pollution-related CVD and provides insights into better prevention and therapeutic strategies.
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality globally. In the past several decades, researchers have raised significant awareness about the sex differences in CVD and the importance of heart disease in women. Besides physiological disparities, many lifestyles and environmental factors such as smoking and diet may affect CVD in a sex -dependent manner. Air pollution is a well-recognized environmental risk factor for CVD. However, the sex differences in air pollution-related CVD have been largely neglected. A majority of the previously completed studies have either evaluated only one sex (generally male) as study subjects or did not compare the sex differences. Some epidemiological and animal studies have shown that there are sex differences in the sensitivity to particulate air pollution as evidenced by the different morbidity and mortality rates of CVD induced by particulate air pollution, although this was not con-clusive. In this review, we attempt to evaluate the sex differences in air pollution-related CVD and the underlying mechanisms by reviewing both epidemiological and animal studies. This review may provide a better understanding of the sex differences in environmental health research, enabling improved prevention and therapeutic strategies for human health in the future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据