Is there a role for coronary artery calcium scoring for management of asymptomatic patients at risk for coronary artery disease?: Clinical risk scores are not sufficient to define primary prevention treatment strategies among asymptomatic patients.

Although risk factors have proven to be useful therapeutic targets, they are poor predictors of risk. Traditional risk scores are moderately successful in predicting future CHD events and can be a starting place for general risk categorization. However, there is substantial heterogeneity between traditional risk and actual atherosclerosis burden, with event rates predominantly driven by burden of atherosclerosis. Serum biomarkers have yet to show any clinically significant incremental value to the FRS and even when combined cannot match the predictive value of atherosclerosis imaging. As clinicians, are we willing to base therapy decisions on risk models that lack optimum-achievable accuracy and limit personalization? The decision to treat a patient in primary prevention must be a careful one because the benefit of therapy in an asymptomatic patient must clearly outweigh the potential risk. CAC, in particular, provides a personalized assessment of risk and may identify patients who will be expected to derive the most, and the least, net absolute benefit from treatment. Emerging evidence hints that CAC may also promote long-term adherence to aspirin, exercise, diet, and statin therapy. When potentially lifelong treatment decisions are on the line, clinicians must arm their patients with the most accurate risk prediction tools, and subclinical atherosclerosis testing with CAC is, at the present time, superior to any combination of risk factors and serum biomarkers.