OBJECTIVES: This study examined a large cohort to assess whether progression of coronary artery calcium (CAC) was associated with all-cause mortality, and which among 3 different methods to assess CAC progression provided the best estimate of risk. BACKGROUND: Serial assessment of CAC scores has been proposed as a method to follow progression of coronary artery disease, and it has been suggested that excessive CAC progression may be a useful noninvasive predictor of the patient's risk of future events. However, the optimal method to measure calcium progression has not been well established. METHODS: The study sample consisted of 4,609 consecutive asymptomatic individuals referred by primary physicians for CAC measurement with electron beam tomography, who underwent repeat screening. Three general statistical approaches were taken: 1) the absolute difference between follow-up and baseline CAC score; 2) percent annualized differences between follow-up and baseline CAC score; and 3) difference between square root of baseline and square root of follow-up CAC score >2.5 (the "SQRT method"). RESULTS: The average interscan time was 3.1 years, and there were 288 deaths. Progression of CAC was significantly associated with mortality regardless of the method used to assess progression (p < 0.0001). After adjusting for baseline score, age, sex, and time between scans, the best CAC progression model to predict mortality was the SQRT method (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.65 to 4.21; p < 0.0001), followed by a >15% yearly increase (HR: 2.98; 95% CI: 2.20 to 4.95; p < 0.0001). Progression was very limited and did not predict mortality in patients with baseline CAC = 0. CONCLUSIONS: The CAC progression added incremental value in predicting all-cause mortality over baseline score, time between scans, demographics, and cardiovascular risk factors. Serial assessment may have clinical value in assessing plaque progression and future cardiovascular risk.
OBJECTIVES: This study examined a large cohort to assess whether progression of coronary artery calcium (CAC) was associated with all-cause mortality, and which among 3 different methods to assess CAC progression provided the best estimate of risk. BACKGROUND: Serial assessment of CAC scores has been proposed as a method to follow progression of coronary artery disease, and it has been suggested that excessive CAC progression may be a useful noninvasive predictor of the patient's risk of future events. However, the optimal method to measure calcium progression has not been well established. METHODS: The study sample consisted of 4,609 consecutive asymptomatic individuals referred by primary physicians for CAC measurement with electron beam tomography, who underwent repeat screening. Three general statistical approaches were taken: 1) the absolute difference between follow-up and baseline CAC score; 2) percent annualized differences between follow-up and baseline CAC score; and 3) difference between square root of baseline and square root of follow-up CAC score >2.5 (the "SQRT method"). RESULTS: The average interscan time was 3.1 years, and there were 288 deaths. Progression of CAC was significantly associated with mortality regardless of the method used to assess progression (p < 0.0001). After adjusting for baseline score, age, sex, and time between scans, the best CAC progression model to predict mortality was the SQRT method (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.65 to 4.21; p < 0.0001), followed by a >15% yearly increase (HR: 2.98; 95% CI: 2.20 to 4.95; p < 0.0001). Progression was very limited and did not predict mortality in patients with baseline CAC = 0. CONCLUSIONS: The CAC progression added incremental value in predicting all-cause mortality over baseline score, time between scans, demographics, and cardiovascular risk factors. Serial assessment may have clinical value in assessing plaque progression and future cardiovascular 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: Tochi M Okwuosa; Philip Greenland; Gregory L Burke; John Eng; Mary Cushman; Erin D Michos; Hongyan Ning; Donald M Lloyd-Jones Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-02
Authors: Joan Perelló; Miquel D Ferrer; Maria Del Mar Pérez; Nadine Kaesler; Vincent M Brandenburg; Geert J Behets; Patrick C D'Haese; Rekha Garg; Bernat Isern; Alex Gold; Myles Wolf; Carolina Salcedo Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2020-08-23 Impact factor: 8.739
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: Hartmut H Malluche; Gustav Blomquist; Marie-Claude Monier-Faugere; Thomas L Cantor; Daniel L Davenport Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Wehab Ahmed; Michiel A de Graaf; Alexander Broersen; Pieter H Kitslaar; Elco Oost; Jouke Dijkstra; Jeroen J Bax; Johan H C Reiber; Arthur J Scholte Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 2.357