A J Taylor1, I Feuerstein, H Wong, W Barko, M Brazaitis, P G O'Malley. 1. Departments of Medicine and Radiology, Cardiology Service, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Building 2, Room 4A, Washington, DC 20307-5001, USA. allen.taylor@na.amedd.army.mil
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend against the routine use of coronary artery calcification (CAC) detection because the additive value over clinical prediction tools is uncertain. We compared CAC, with use of electron-beam computed tomography (EBCT), with clinical and serologic coronary risk factors for the identification of patients with increased coronary heart disease risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 630 active-duty US Army personnel (39-45 years old) without known coronary artery disease (CAD) who were undergoing a routine physical examination as required by regulations. Each participant underwent clinical and serologic risk factor screening and EBCT. The cohort (mean age 42 +/- 2 years, 82% male) had a low predicted risk of coronary events (mean 5-year Framingham risk index [FRI] 1.6% +/- 1.2%). The prevalence of coronary calcification was 17.6% (male 20.6%, female 4.3%). Significant univariate correlates of CAC were total and low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, and body mass index. However, only LDL cholesterol was independently associated with CAC. There was a significant but weak relationship between CAC and the Framingham risk index (FRI) (receiver-operator characteristic [ROC] curve area 0.62 +/- 0.03, P <.001), which was not different from the relationship between CAC and LDL cholesterol alone (ROC curve area 0.61 +/- 0.03, P <.001). The prevalence of any CAC in men increased slightly across increasing quartiles of FRI: 17.0%, 20.8%, 33.0%, and 29.2% (P =.033). Other risk factors (family history, homocysteine, insulin, lipoprotein[a], and fibrinogen) were not related to CAC. CONCLUSIONS: In this age-homogeneous, low-risk screening cohort, conventional coronary risk factors significantly underestimated the presence of premature, subclinical calcified coronary atherosclerosis. These data support the potential of CAC detection as an anatomic, plaque-burden diagnostic test to identify patients who may require more intensive risk-reduction therapies, independent of predicted clinical risk.
BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend against the routine use of coronary artery calcification (CAC) detection because the additive value over clinical prediction tools is uncertain. We compared CAC, with use of electron-beam computed tomography (EBCT), with clinical and serologic coronary risk factors for the identification of patients with increased coronary heart disease risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 630 active-duty US Army personnel (39-45 years old) without known coronary artery disease (CAD) who were undergoing a routine physical examination as required by regulations. Each participant underwent clinical and serologic risk factor screening and EBCT. The cohort (mean age 42 +/- 2 years, 82% male) had a low predicted risk of coronary events (mean 5-year Framingham risk index [FRI] 1.6% +/- 1.2%). The prevalence of coronary calcification was 17.6% (male 20.6%, female 4.3%). Significant univariate correlates of CAC were total and low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, and body mass index. However, only LDL cholesterol was independently associated with CAC. There was a significant but weak relationship between CAC and the Framingham risk index (FRI) (receiver-operator characteristic [ROC] curve area 0.62 +/- 0.03, P <.001), which was not different from the relationship between CAC and LDL cholesterol alone (ROC curve area 0.61 +/- 0.03, P <.001). The prevalence of any CAC in men increased slightly across increasing quartiles of FRI: 17.0%, 20.8%, 33.0%, and 29.2% (P =.033). Other risk factors (family history, homocysteine, insulin, lipoprotein[a], and fibrinogen) were not related to CAC. CONCLUSIONS: In this age-homogeneous, low-risk screening cohort, conventional coronary risk factors significantly underestimated the presence of premature, subclinical calcified coronary atherosclerosis. These data support the potential of CAC detection as an anatomic, plaque-burden diagnostic test to identify patients who may require more intensive risk-reduction therapies, independent of predicted clinical risk.
Authors: F Cademartiri; L La Grutta; A Palumbo; E Maffei; A Aldrovandi; R Malagò; F Alberghina; F Pugliese; G Runza; M Belgrano; M Midiri; M A Cova; G P Krestin Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2007-07-24 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Gaetano Nucifora; Joanne D Schuijf; Jacob M van Werkhoven; J Wouter Jukema; Roxana Djaberi; Arthur J H A Scholte; Albert de Roos; Martin J Schalij; Ernst E van der Wall; Jeroen J Bax Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2009-02-14 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Evadnie Rampersaud; Lawrence F Bielak; Afshin Parsa; Haiqing Shen; Wendy Post; Kathleen A Ryan; Patrick Donnelly; John A Rumberger; Patrick F Sheedy; Patricia A Peyser; Alan R Shuldiner; Braxton D Mitchell Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-09-19 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Seamus P Whelton; John W McEvoy; Leslee Shaw; Bruce M Psaty; Joao A C Lima; Matthew Budoff; Khurram Nasir; Moyses Szklo; Roger S Blumenthal; Michael J Blaha Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Seamus P Whelton; John W McEvoy; Leslee Shaw; Bruce M Psaty; Joao A C Lima; Matthew Budoff; Khurram Nasir; Moyses Szklo; Roger S Blumenthal; Michael J Blaha Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Ann Van Campenhout; Corey S Moran; Adam Parr; Paula Clancy; Catherine Rush; Hieronim Jakubowski; Jonathan Golledge Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2008-05-28 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Kelley Pettee Gabriel; Karen A Matthews; Adriana Pérez; Daniel Edmundowicz; Harold W Kohl; Marquis S Hawkins; Judson C Janak; Andrea M Kriska; Lewis H Kuller Journal: Menopause Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 2.953