Erectile dysfunction as an early marker of cardiovascular risk: a narrative review

Erectile dysfunction as an early marker of cardiovascular risk: a narrative review

Juan A. Lozano-Arce 1 , Jorge A. Castrillón-Lozano 2 , Samuel Serrano 3, Joseph Sánchez 3

1 Medicina General, Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia, Medellín, Colombia; 2 Grupo de Investigación Infettare, Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia, Medellín, Colombia; 3 Urología, Los Cobos MC, Universidad El Bosque, UROUEB, Bogotá, Colombia

*Correspondence: Jorge A. Castrillón-Lozano. Email: jorge.castrillon@campusucc.edu.co

Abstract

Erectile dysfunction is the inability to maintain or initiate an erection during sexual intercourse. It has metabolic, genetic, epigenetic, and cardiovascular causes, and not only represents alterations in self-perception and self-esteem, but has also been shown to be an early marker of cardiovascular risk. Upon identification, a multidisciplinary approach is required. Early screening results in reduced morbidity, mortality, and survival in these patients. This paper presents a narrative review of the main scientific databases, presenting the association and clinical implications between erectile dysfunction and cardiovascular risk.

Keywords: Erectile dysfunction. Urology. Cardiovascular risk. Narrative review.

Contents

Content available only in Spanish.
⇄ Versión en Español
DOI not available
Add to Mendeley

Content available only in Spanish.

    English versión
    DOI not available

    Editorial times

    The editorial process consists of 6 stages:

    1. Reception of the manuscript (indeterminate, depending on whether the author meets the requirements): its objective is to verify that the manuscript complies with the specifications of these instructions for authors and that the submitted documentation is complete.

    2. Initial editorial review (maximum 5 business days): its objective is to corroborate the relevance, timeliness, originality, and scientific contribution of the manuscript, as well as the methodological and statistical soundness of the study. At this time, it will be submitted to an electronic plagiarism detection system. Derived from this, a rejected opinion may be obtained, or it will be sent for review by peer researchers.

    3. Review by peer researchers (maximum 30 business days): the opinion of at least two experts in the area in question will be obtained, who will evaluate the technical and methodological aspects of the investigation.

    4. Editorial review (maximum 7 business days): its objective is to make a decision based on the opinion of peer reviewers. The opinion can be rejected, major changes, minor changes or accepted. In the case of major or minor changes, it will be submitted again for evaluation by the initial peer reviewers.

    5. Final edition (6 weeks): its objective is the technical and linguistic edition (and translation), layout of galleys, DOI assignment, and correction by the author.

    6. Advanced publication: All manuscripts will be published ahead of print on the journal’s website as soon as they complete the editing process, until they are incorporated into a final issue of the journal.