Cited by 353Atrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasAcute Ischemic Stroke Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 178 of the 178 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 143 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Atrial fibrillation in women: epidemiology, pathophysiology, presentation, and prognosis

Open access

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia in women and men worldwide. During the past century, a range of risk factors has been associated with AF, severe complications from the arrhythmia have been identified, and its prevalence has been increasing steadily. Whereas evidence has accumulated regarding sex-specific differences in coronary heart disease and stroke, the differences between women and men with AF has received less attention. We review the current literature on sex-specific differences in the epidemiology of AF, including incidence, prevalence, risk factors, and genetics, and in the pathophysiology and the clinical presentation and prognosis of patients with this arrhythmia. We highlight current knowledge gaps and areas that warrant future research, which might advance understanding of variation in the risk factors and complications of AF, and ultimately aid more-tailored management of the arrhythmia.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This narrative review summarizes sex differences in atrial fibrillation (AF) epidemiology, pathophysiology, presentation, and prognosis, noting lower incidence and prevalence in women but higher symptom burden, stroke risk, and some mortality risk. It highlights major knowledge gaps, especially limited pathophysiologic and non-North American/European data and lack of formal sex-interaction testing.

Key findings

  • AF prevalence is lower in women (373 per 100,000) than men (596 per 100,000); age-adjusted incidence in North America/Europe is 1.5–2 times higher in men, with Framingham and Olmsted County incidence rates of 1.6 and 2.7 per 1000 person-years in women versus 3.8 and 4.7 in men.
  • Lifetime risk is similar in North American/European populations (Framingham at age 60: 23.4% in women vs 25.8% in men; Rotterdam at age 55: 22.2% vs 23.8%), but a Chinese population study reported higher lifetime risk in women than men (22.2% vs 16.7%).
  • Women with AF are more likely to be symptomatic and less likely to have asymptomatic AF (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.52–0.64), more often seek care, and have worse quality of life; female sex is an independent risk factor for AF-related stroke (e.g., Framingham HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.2–3.07; ATRIA RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3–1.9).
  • Mortality findings are inconsistent across studies, but a meta-analysis of 19 studies found higher all-cause mortality in women than men with AF (women-to-men RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.07–1.17); sex differences in AF-related heart failure, myocardial infarction, and dementia remain less clear.

Methods

  • Design: narrative review of the literature on sex-specific differences in AF epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and prognosis.
  • Data/sample: published studies, including cohort, registry, randomized trial, and meta-analysis data, with supplementary tables; no primary patient sample was analyzed.
  • Main analysis: narrative synthesis of incidence, prevalence, risk factors, genetics, pathophysiology, presentation, and prognosis, with identification of knowledge gaps and future research directions.

Limitations

  • The authors state that studies investigating sex-related differences in AF pathophysiology are limited and mechanisms remain inadequately understood.
  • The authors state that many studies had limited sample size and did not formally test for effect modification by sex; data from outside North America and Europe are sparse, and findings may not generalize to other ethnic groups.
  • Evident from the text: as a narrative review, it does not report a systematic search strategy, inclusion criteria, or formal quality/risk-of-bias assessment; mortality comparisons are also challenged by substantial differences in follow-up time across studies.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrcardio.2016.45

Cites

178 of 178 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 143 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 41 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 22
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 5
28 of 28
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    AF is the most common sustained arrhythmia in women and men worldwide.

    “Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia in women and men worldwide.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Little is known about the underlying mechanisms of the increased risk of stroke in women with atrial fibrillation.

    “Nonetheless, little is known of the underlying mechanisms.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Little attention has been paid to potential sex differences in the atrial fibrillation-related risks of heart failure, myocardial infarction, and dementia.

    “To date, little attention has been paid to potential sex differences in the AF-related risks of HF, MI, and dementia.”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Sex-specific CHA2DS2-VASc scores are reversed

    Minor

    The paper first assigns a score of 0 to men and 1 to women in the MI analysis, then assigns scores of 0 and 1 to women and men, respectively. The latter also conflicts with the paper's statement that female sex itself earns one point.

  • Reported hazard ratio lies outside its confidence interval

    Minor

    The reported Swedish hazard ratio of 1.18 is above the upper bound of its reported 95% confidence interval, 1.15.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 178 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–352 of 352

Metadata

Authors
Ko, D., Rahman, F., Schnabel, R. B., Yin, X., Benjamin, E. J., & Christophersen, I. E.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Universität Hamburg (DE)
  • Vestre Viken Hospital Trust (NO)
Corresponding author
Christophersen, Ingrid E.
Venue
Nature Reviews Cardiology
Published
2016-04-07
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
321-332
ISSN
  • 1759-5002 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-5010
OpenAlex
W2322257236
Cited by
353
References
178
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 9
FWCI
4.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000157, n01hc25195-41-0-1)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HHSN268201500001I, HHSN268201500001C, R01HL128914, R01HL102214, T32HL007224, N01-HC-025195, RC1HL101056, R01HL092577)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
Keywords
atrial fibrillation, sex differences, women, epidemiology, pathophysiology, risk factors, clinical features, prognosis, arrhythmia complications
MeSH terms
Atrial Fibrillation, Female, Humans, Prognosis, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Incidence, Prevalence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review