OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine net reclassification improvement (NRI) and improved risk prediction based on coronary artery calcification (CAC) scoring in comparison with traditional risk factors. BACKGROUND: CAC as a sign of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis can noninvasively be detected by CT and has been suggested to predict coronary events. METHODS: In 4,129 subjects from the HNR (Heinz Nixdorf Recall) study (age 45 to 75 years, 53% female) without overt coronary artery disease at baseline, traditional risk factors and CAC scores were measured. Their risk was categorized into low, intermediate, and high according to the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and National Cholesterol Education Panel Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III guidelines, and the reclassification rate based on CAC results was calculated. RESULTS: After 5 years of follow-up, 93 coronary deaths and nonfatal myocardial infarctions occurred (cumulative risk 2.3%; 95% confidence interval: 1.8% to 2.8%). Reclassifying intermediate (defined as 10% to 20% and 6% to 20%) risk subjects with CAC <100 to the low-risk category and with CAC ≥400 to the high-risk category yielded an NRI of 21.7% (p = 0.0002) and 30.6% (p < 0.0001) for the FRS, respectively. Integrated discrimination improvement using FRS variables and CAC was 1.52% (p < 0.0001). Adding CAC scores to the FRS and National Cholesterol Education Panel ATP III categories improved the area under the curve from 0.681 to 0.749 (p < 0.003) and from 0.653 to 0.755 (p = 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CAC scoring results in a high reclassification rate in the intermediate-risk cohort, demonstrating the benefit of imaging of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis. Our study supports its application, especially in carefully selected individuals with intermediate risk.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine net reclassification improvement (NRI) and improved risk prediction based on coronary artery calcification (CAC) scoring in comparison with traditional risk factors. BACKGROUND: CAC as a sign of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis can noninvasively be detected by CT and has been suggested to predict coronary events. METHODS: In 4,129 subjects from the HNR (Heinz Nixdorf Recall) study (age 45 to 75 years, 53% female) without overt coronary artery disease at baseline, traditional risk factors and CAC scores were measured. Their risk was categorized into low, intermediate, and high according to the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and National Cholesterol Education Panel Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III guidelines, and the reclassification rate based on CAC results was calculated. RESULTS: After 5 years of follow-up, 93 coronary deaths and nonfatal myocardial infarctions occurred (cumulative risk 2.3%; 95% confidence interval: 1.8% to 2.8%). Reclassifying intermediate (defined as 10% to 20% and 6% to 20%) risk subjects with CAC <100 to the low-risk category and with CAC ≥400 to the high-risk category yielded an NRI of 21.7% (p = 0.0002) and 30.6% (p < 0.0001) for the FRS, respectively. Integrated discrimination improvement using FRS variables and CAC was 1.52% (p < 0.0001). Adding CAC scores to the FRS and National Cholesterol Education Panel ATP III categories improved the area under the curve from 0.681 to 0.749 (p < 0.003) and from 0.653 to 0.755 (p = 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CAC scoring results in a high reclassification rate in the intermediate-risk cohort, demonstrating the benefit of imaging of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis. Our study supports its application, especially in carefully selected individuals with intermediate risk.
Authors: Véronique L Roger; Alan S Go; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; William B Borden; Dawn M Bravata; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Diane M Makuc; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Claudia S Moy; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael E Mussolino; Graham Nichol; Nina P Paynter; Elsayed Z Soliman; Paul D Sorlie; Nona Sotoodehnia; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: N Reinsch; A A Mahabadi; N Lehmann; S Möhlenkamp; C Hoefs; B Sievers; T Budde; R Seibel; K-H Jöckel; R Erbel Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Daniel S Berman; Matthew J Budoff; James K Min; Paolo Raggi; Alan Rozanski; Leslee Shaw; Prem Soman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Faisal Rahman; Mahmoud Al Rifai; Michael J Blaha; Khurram Nasir; Matthew J Budoff; Bruce M Psaty; Wendy S Post; Roger S Blumenthal; John W McEvoy Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Laura M Raffield; Subhashish Agarwal; Amanda J Cox; Fang-Chi Hsu; J Jeffrey Carr; Barry I Freedman; Jianzhao Xu; Donald W Bowden; Mara Z Vitolins Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Andreas D Knudsen; Andreas Fuchs; J Tobias Kühl; Ben A Arnold; Børge G Nordestgaard; Lars V Køber; Klaus F Kofoed Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 5.315