Evidence Hub

Comparative Analysis of Gender-Specific Patterns of Traditional Coronary Artery Disease Risk Factors and QRISK3 Scores in First-Degree Relatives of Coronary Artery Disease Patients

Parmar M, Vyas P, Patel K, Rana A, Kalsariya V, Zadafiya M

Journal of research in health sciences, 2025

4,485 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading cause of death globally, with genetic and lifestyle factors contributing to its development. The first-degree relatives of CAD patients are at increased risk due to shared genetics and environments. This study aimed to perform a comparative analysis of gender-specific patterns of traditional CAD risk factors and QRISK3 scores in the first-degree relatives of CAD patients. Study Design: A cross-sectional study.

METHODS: This study enrolled 4,485 participants of first-degree relatives of patients who had been admitted to the hospital for CAD. Gender-specific comparisons were conducted in the first-degree relatives of CAD to assess traditional risk factors and QRISK3 scores.

RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 41.8 years, with males comprising 66% of participants in our study. Males exhibited more traditional risk factors, including higher systolic and diastolic blood pressure, dyslipidaemia, smoking, alcohol, junk food consumption, and oral tobacco use. Females had a higher prevalence of obesity, inadequate sleep, depression, and migraines. Males had a significantly higher 10-year CAD risk according to QRISK3 scores, reflecting an increased healthy heart age of 4.20±1.32 years compared to their chronological age (P=0.0004).

CONCLUSION: The prevalence of coronary risk factors was twice as high in the first-degree male relatives of individuals with known CAD compared to females. Distinct gender-based differences were found…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 4,485 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free