OBJECTIVES: In this study, we aimed to establish whether age-sex-specific percentiles of coronary artery calcium (CAC) predict cardiovascular outcomes better than the actual (absolute) CAC score. BACKGROUND: The presence and extent of CAC correlates with the overall magnitude of coronary atherosclerotic plaque burden and with the development of subsequent coronary events. METHODS: MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) is a prospective cohort study of 6,814 asymptomatic participants followed for coronary heart disease (CHD) events including myocardial infarction, angina, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or CHD death. Time to incident CHD was modeled with Cox regression, and we compared models with percentiles based on age, sex, and/or race/ethnicity to categories commonly used (0, 1 to 100, 101 to 400, 400+ Agatston units). RESULTS: There were 163 (2.4%) incident CHD events (median follow-up 3.75 years). Expressing CAC in terms of age- and sex-specific percentiles had significantly lower area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) than when using absolute scores (women: AUC 0.73 versus 0.76, p = 0.044; men: AUC 0.73 versus 0.77, p < 0.001). Akaike's information criterion indicated better model fit with the overall score. Both methods robustly predicted events (>90th percentile associated with a hazard ratio [HR] of 16.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.30 to 28.9, and score >400 associated with HR of 20.6, 95% CI: 11.8 to 36.0). Within groups based on age-, sex-, and race/ethnicity-specific percentiles there remains a clear trend of increasing risk across levels of the absolute CAC groups. In contrast, once absolute CAC category is fixed, there is no increasing trend across levels of age-, sex-, and race/ethnicity-specific categories. Patients with low absolute scores are low-risk, regardless of age-, sex-, and race/ethnicity-specific percentile rank. Persons with an absolute CAC score of >400 are high risk, regardless of percentile rank. CONCLUSIONS: Using absolute CAC in standard groups performed better than age-, sex-, and race/ethnicity-specific percentiles in terms of model fit and discrimination. We recommend using cut points based on the absolute CAC amount, and the common CAC cut points of 100 and 400 seem to perform well.
OBJECTIVES: In this study, we aimed to establish whether age-sex-specific percentiles of coronary artery calcium (CAC) predict cardiovascular outcomes better than the actual (absolute) CAC score. BACKGROUND: The presence and extent of CAC correlates with the overall magnitude of coronary atherosclerotic plaque burden and with the development of subsequent coronary events. METHODS:MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) is a prospective cohort study of 6,814 asymptomatic participants followed for coronary heart disease (CHD) events including myocardial infarction, angina, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or CHD death. Time to incident CHD was modeled with Cox regression, and we compared models with percentiles based on age, sex, and/or race/ethnicity to categories commonly used (0, 1 to 100, 101 to 400, 400+ Agatston units). RESULTS: There were 163 (2.4%) incident CHD events (median follow-up 3.75 years). Expressing CAC in terms of age- and sex-specific percentiles had significantly lower area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) than when using absolute scores (women: AUC 0.73 versus 0.76, p = 0.044; men: AUC 0.73 versus 0.77, p < 0.001). Akaike's information criterion indicated better model fit with the overall score. Both methods robustly predicted events (>90th percentile associated with a hazard ratio [HR] of 16.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.30 to 28.9, and score >400 associated with HR of 20.6, 95% CI: 11.8 to 36.0). Within groups based on age-, sex-, and race/ethnicity-specific percentiles there remains a clear trend of increasing risk across levels of the absolute CAC groups. In contrast, once absolute CAC category is fixed, there is no increasing trend across levels of age-, sex-, and race/ethnicity-specific categories. Patients with low absolute scores are low-risk, regardless of age-, sex-, and race/ethnicity-specific percentile rank. Persons with an absolute CAC score of >400 are high risk, regardless of percentile rank. CONCLUSIONS: Using absolute CAC in standard groups performed better than age-, sex-, and race/ethnicity-specific percentiles in terms of model fit and discrimination. We recommend using cut points based on the absolute CAC amount, and the common CAC cut points of 100 and 400 seem to perform well.
Authors: J Jeffrey Carr; Jennifer Clark Nelson; Nathan D Wong; Michael McNitt-Gray; Yadon Arad; David R Jacobs; Stephan Sidney; Diane E Bild; O Dale Williams; Robert C Detrano Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Matthijs Oudkerk; Albert Hofman; Hok-Hay S Oei; Wim van Dijck; Frank J A van Rooij; Jacqueline C M Witteman Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-07-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Diane E Bild; Robert Detrano; Do Peterson; Alan Guerci; Kiang Liu; Eyal Shahar; Pamela Ouyang; Sharon Jackson; Mohammed F Saad Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Matthew J Budoff; Leslee J Shaw; Sandy T Liu; Steven R Weinstein; Tristen P Mosler; Philip H Tseng; Ferdinand R Flores; Tracy Q Callister; Paolo Raggi; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-04-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Robert Detrano; Alan D Guerci; J Jeffrey Carr; Diane E Bild; Gregory Burke; Aaron R Folsom; Kiang Liu; Steven Shea; Moyses Szklo; David A Bluemke; Daniel H O'Leary; Russell Tracy; Karol Watson; Nathan D Wong; Richard A Kronmal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-03-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Diane E Bild; David A Bluemke; Gregory L Burke; Robert Detrano; Ana V Diez Roux; Aaron R Folsom; Philip Greenland; David R Jacob; Richard Kronmal; Kiang Liu; Jennifer Clark Nelson; Daniel O'Leary; Mohammed F Saad; Steven Shea; Moyses Szklo; Russell P Tracy Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Oliver Klass; Susanne Kleinhans; Matthew J Walker; Mark Olszewski; Sebastian Feuerlein; Markus Juchems; Martin H K Hoffmann Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-03-26 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Marcelo Souto Nacif; Nadine Kawel; Jason J Lee; Xinjian Chen; Jianhua Yao; Anna Zavodni; Christopher T Sibley; João A C Lima; Songtao Liu; David A Bluemke Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hye Rin Kim; Seung Min Yoo; Ji Young Rho; Hwa Yeon Lee; Charles S White Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Ying L Liu; Moyses Szklo; Karina W Davidson; Joan M Bathon; Jon T Giles Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Anand Rohatgi; Parag Patel; Sandeep R Das; Colby R Ayers; Amit Khera; Abelardo Martinez-Rumayor; Jarett D Berry; Darren K McGuire; James A de Lemos Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Nivee P Amin; Seth S Martin; Michael J Blaha; Khurram Nasir; Roger S Blumenthal; Erin D Michos Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Carmen A Peralta; Kathryn L Adeney; Michael G Shlipak; David Jacobs; Daniel Duprez; David Bluemke; Joseph Polak; Bruce Psaty; Bryan R Kestenbaum Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2009-11-30 Impact factor: 4.897