OBJECTIVES: We conducted a prospective randomized trial to compare the clinical impact of conventional risk factor modification to that associated with the addition of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scanning. BACKGROUND: Although CAC scanning predicts cardiac events, its impact on subsequent medical management and coronary artery disease risk is not known. METHODS: We assigned 2,137 volunteers to groups that eitherdid undergo CAC scanning or did not undergo CAC scanning before risk factor counseling. The primary end point was 4-year change in coronary artery disease risk factors and Framingham Risk Score. We also compared the groups for differences in downstream medical resource utilization. RESULTS: Compared with the no-scan group, the scan group showed a net favorable change in systolic blood pressure (p = 0.02), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p = 0.04), and waist circumference for those with increased abdominal girth (p = 0.01), and tendency to weight loss among overweight subjects (p = 0.07). While there was a mean rise in Framingham Risk Score (FRS) in the no-scan group, FRS remained static in the scan group (0.7 ± 5.1 vs. 0.002 ± 4.9, p = 0.003). Within the scan group, increasing baseline CAC score was associated with a dose-response improvement in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (p < 0.001), total cholesterol (p < 0.001), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p < 0.001), triglycerides (p < 0.001), weight (p < 0.001), and Framingham Risk Score (p = 0.003). Downstream medical testing and costs in the scan group were comparable to those of the no-scan group, balanced by lower and higher resource utilization for subjects with normal CAC scans and CAC scores ≥400, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with no scanning, randomization to CAC scanning was associated with superior coronary artery disease risk factor control without increasing downstream medical testing. Further study of CAC scanning, including pre-specified treatment recommendations, to assess its impact of cardiovascular outcomes is warranted.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: We conducted a prospective randomized trial to compare the clinical impact of conventional risk factor modification to that associated with the addition of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scanning. BACKGROUND: Although CAC scanning predicts cardiac events, its impact on subsequent medical management and coronary artery disease risk is not known. METHODS: We assigned 2,137 volunteers to groups that either did undergo CAC scanning or did not undergo CAC scanning before risk factor counseling. The primary end point was 4-year change in coronary artery disease risk factors and Framingham Risk Score. We also compared the groups for differences in downstream medical resource utilization. RESULTS: Compared with the no-scan group, the scan group showed a net favorable change in systolic blood pressure (p = 0.02), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p = 0.04), and waist circumference for those with increased abdominal girth (p = 0.01), and tendency to weight loss among overweight subjects (p = 0.07). While there was a mean rise in Framingham Risk Score (FRS) in the no-scan group, FRS remained static in the scan group (0.7 ± 5.1 vs. 0.002 ± 4.9, p = 0.003). Within the scan group, increasing baseline CAC score was associated with a dose-response improvement in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (p < 0.001), total cholesterol (p < 0.001), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p < 0.001), triglycerides (p < 0.001), weight (p < 0.001), and Framingham Risk Score (p = 0.003). Downstream medical testing and costs in the scan group were comparable to those of the no-scan group, balanced by lower and higher resource utilization for subjects with normal CAC scans and CAC scores ≥400, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with no scanning, randomization to CAC scanning was associated with superior coronary artery disease risk factor control without increasing downstream medical testing. Further study of CAC scanning, including pre-specified treatment recommendations, to assess its impact of cardiovascular outcomes is warranted.
Authors: Daniel S Berman; Nathan D Wong; Heidi Gransar; Romalisa Miranda-Peats; John Dahlbeck; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Xingping Kang; Donna Polk; Rory Hachamovitch; Leslee Shaw; Alan Rozanski Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-08-18 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: George T Kondos; Julie Anne Hoff; Alexander Sevrukov; Martha L Daviglus; Daniel B Garside; Stephen S Devries; Eva V Chomka; Kiang Liu Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-05-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Stephan Achenbach; Dieter Ropers; Karsten Pohle; Alexander Leber; Christian Thilo; Andreas Knez; Theresa Menendez; Ralph Maeffert; Magda Kusus; Matthias Regenfus; Andrea Bickel; Ralph Haberl; Gerhard Steinbeck; Werner Moshage; Werner G Daniel Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-08-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Alan Rozanski; Heidi Gransar; Leslee Shaw; Nathan D Wong; James Min; Romalisa Miranda-Peats; Sean W Hayes; John D Friedman; Daniel S Berman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-12-24 Impact factor: 5.952
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: Sana Shah; Naveen Bellam; Jonathon Leipsic; Daniel S Berman; Arshed Quyyumi; Jörg Hausleiter; Stephan Achenbach; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Matthew J Budoff; Fillippo Cademartiri; Tracy Q Callister; Hyuk-Jae Chang; Benjamin J W Chow; Ricardo C Cury; Augustin J Delago; Allison L Dunning; Gudrun M Feuchtner; Martin Hadamitzky; Ronald P Karlsberg; Philipp A Kaufmann; Fay Y Lin; Kavitha M Chinnaiyan; Erica Maffei; Gilbert L Raff; Todd C Villines; Millie J Gomez; James K Min; Leslee J Shaw Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2014-03-29 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; Michael J Blaha; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Dilip K Pandey; Nina P Paynter; Matthew J Reeves; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: S Divakaran; M K Cheezum; E A Hulten; M S Bittencourt; M G Silverman; K Nasir; R Blankstein Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2014-12-12 Impact factor: 3.039