Mark J Pletcher1, Jeffrey A Tice, Michael Pignone, Warren S Browner. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, 500 Parnassus Ave, MU 420 West, Box 0560, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA. mpletcher@epi.ucsf.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary prevention of coronary heart disease is most appropriate for patients at relatively high risk. Measurement of coronary artery calcium has been proposed as a way to improve risk assessment, but it is unknown whether it adds predictive information to standard risk factor assessment. METHODS: We systematically searched electronic databases for relevant articles published between January 1, 1980, and March 19, 2003, and hand searched bibliographies. We included studies that reported measuring the coronary artery calcium score by electron beam computed tomography in asymptomatic subjects and subsequent follow-up of those patients for coronary events and that presented score-specific relative risks, adjusted for established risk factors. Two abstractors verified inclusion criteria and abstracted data from each study. We estimated adjusted relative risks associated with 3 standard categories of coronary artery calcium scores (1-100, 101-400, and >400), compared with a score of 0, and used a random-effects model for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Meta-analysis of the 4 studies meeting inclusion criteria yielded a summary adjusted relative risk of 2.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.6-2.9) for a coronary artery calcium score of 1 to 100. Relative risk estimates for higher calcium scores were higher, ranging from 3.0 to 17.0 but varied significantly among studies. Subgroup analyses suggested that differences among studies in outcome adjudication (blinded or not), measurement of other risk factors (direct or by patient history), tomographic slice thickness (3 or 6 mm), and/or proportion of female study subjects may account for this heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: The coronary artery calcium score is an independent predictor of coronary heart disease events.
BACKGROUND: Primary prevention of coronary heart disease is most appropriate for patients at relatively high risk. Measurement of coronary artery calcium has been proposed as a way to improve risk assessment, but it is unknown whether it adds predictive information to standard risk factor assessment. METHODS: We systematically searched electronic databases for relevant articles published between January 1, 1980, and March 19, 2003, and hand searched bibliographies. We included studies that reported measuring the coronary artery calcium score by electron beam computed tomography in asymptomatic subjects and subsequent follow-up of those patients for coronary events and that presented score-specific relative risks, adjusted for established risk factors. Two abstractors verified inclusion criteria and abstracted data from each study. We estimated adjusted relative risks associated with 3 standard categories of coronary artery calcium scores (1-100, 101-400, and >400), compared with a score of 0, and used a random-effects model for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Meta-analysis of the 4 studies meeting inclusion criteria yielded a summary adjusted relative risk of 2.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.6-2.9) for a coronary artery calcium score of 1 to 100. Relative risk estimates for higher calcium scores were higher, ranging from 3.0 to 17.0 but varied significantly among studies. Subgroup analyses suggested that differences among studies in outcome adjudication (blinded or not), measurement of other risk factors (direct or by patient history), tomographic slice thickness (3 or 6 mm), and/or proportion of female study subjects may account for this heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: The coronary artery calcium score is an independent predictor of coronary heart disease events.
Authors: Jeremy M Robbins; Andrew B Petrone; J Jeffrey Carr; James S Pankow; Steven C Hunt; Gerardo Heiss; Donna K Arnett; R Curtis Ellison; J Michael Gaziano; Luc Djoussé Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Donghee Kim; Su-Yeon Choi; Eun Ha Park; Whal Lee; Jin Hwa Kang; Won Kim; Yoon Jun Kim; Jung-Hwan Yoon; Sook Hyang Jeong; Dong Ho Lee; Hyo-suk Lee; Joseph Larson; Terry M Therneau; W Ray Kim Journal: Hepatology Date: 2012-07-02 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Claude Messan Setodji; Maren Scheuner; James S Pankow; Roger S Blumenthal; Haiying Chen; Emmett Keeler Journal: Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol Date: 2012-03
Authors: Christopher J O'Donnell; M Kyla Shea; Paul A Price; David R Gagnon; Peter W F Wilson; Martin G Larson; Douglas P Kiel; Udo Hoffmann; Maros Ferencik; Melvin E Clouse; Matthew K Williamson; L Adrienne Cupples; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Sarah L Booth Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2006-09-14 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: J D Schuijf; D Poldermans; L J Shaw; J W Jukema; H J Lamb; A de Roos; W Wijns; E E van der Wall; J J Bax Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Rosalba Hernandez; Norrina Bai Allen; Kiang Liu; Jeremiah Stamler; Kathryn Jean Reid; Phyllis C Zee; Donghong Wu; Joseph Kang; Daniel B Garside; Martha L Daviglus Journal: Prev Med Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 4.018