In cardiovascular research, sex and gender have not typically been considered in research design and reporting until recently. This has resulted in clinical research findings from which not only all women, but also gender-diverse individuals have been excluded. The resulting dearth of data has led to a lack of sex- and gender-specific clinical guidelines and raises serious questions about evidence-based care. Basic research has also excluded considerations of sex. Including sex and/or gender as research variables not only has the potential to improve the health of society overall now, but it also provides a foundation of knowledge on which to build future advances. The goal of this guidelines article is to provide advice on best practices to include sex and gender considerations in study design, as well as data collection, analysis, and interpretation to optimally establish rigor and reproducibility needed to inform clinical decision-making and improve outcomes. In cardiovascular physiology, incorporating sex and gender is a necessary component when optimally designing and executing research plans. The guidelines serve as the first guidance on how to include sex and gender in cardiovascular research. We provide here a beginning path toward achieving this goal and improve the ability of the research community to interpret results through a sex and gender lens to enable comparison across studies and laboratories, resulting in better health for all.

Treatment of heart failure (HF) is particularly complex in the presence of comorbidities. We sought to identify and associate comorbidity profiles with inpatient outcomes during HF hospitalizations.

Background: Although women with heart failure (HF) are potentially more likely to be physically frail compared with men with HF, the underlying contributors to this sex difference are poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to characterize sex differences in physical frailty phenotypes in HF. Methods: We prospectively enrolled adults with class I–IV HF. Physical frailty was measured with the frailty phenotype criteria. Symptoms of dyspnea, sleep-related impairment, pain interference, depression, and anxiety were assessed. Body composition was measured using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Simple comparative statistics and stepwise regression modeling were used. Results: The average age of the sample (n=115) was 63.6±15.7 years, 49% were women, and 73% had nonischemic cause. Forty-three percent of the sample was physically frail. Women had a 4.6 times greater odds of being physically frail compared with men, adjusting for covariates (odds ratio=4.63 [95% CI, 1.81–11.84], P =0.001). Both physically frail men and women were characterized by more type 2 diabetes, higher comorbidity burden, and worse dyspnea symptoms. Physically frail women had significantly worse symptoms compared with non–physically frail women but no difference in body composition characteristics. Physically frail men had significantly lower appendicular muscle mass, higher percent fat, lower hemoglobin, and more depressive symptoms compared with non–physically frail men. Conclusions: Women are significantly more likely to be physically frail compared with men in HF. Physical frailty in both women and men is characterized by comorbidities and worse symptoms; physical frailty in men is characterized by worse physiological characteristics.