Jan M Hughes-Austin1, Arturo Dominguez2, Matthew A Allison3, Christina L Wassel4, Dena E Rifkin3, Cindy G Morgan5, Michael R Daniels5, Umaira Ikram5, Jessica B Knox5, C Michael Wright6, Michael H Criqui5, Joachim H Ix7. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, California; Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, California. 2. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, California. 3. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, California; Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, California; Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, California. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, California. 6. Scripps Health, La Jolla, California. 7. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, California; Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, California; Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, California. Electronic address: joix@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the correlation between coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores on 3 mm electrocardiography (ECG)-gated computed tomography (CT) scans and standard 6 mm chest CT scans, and to compare relative strength of associations of CAC on each scan type with mortality risk. BACKGROUND: Coronary artery calcification predicts cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality, and is typically measured on ECG-gated 3 mm CT scans. Patients undergo standard 6 mm chest CTs for various clinical indications much more frequently, but CAC is not usually quantified. To better understand the usefulness of standard chest CTs to quantify CAC, we conducted a case-control study among persons who had both scan types. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2003, 4,544 community-living individuals self- or physician-referred for "whole-body" CT scans, had 3 mm ECG-gated CTs and standard 6 mm chest CTs, and were followed for mortality through 2009. In this nested case-control study, we identified 157 deaths and 494 controls frequency matched (1:3) on age and sex. The Agatston method quantified CAC on both scan types. Unconditional logistic regression determined associations with mortality, accounting for CVD risk factors. RESULTS: Participants were 68 ± 11 years of age and 63% male. The Spearman correlation of CAC scores between the 2 scan types was 0.93 (p < 0.001); median CAC scores were lower on 6 mm CTs compared to 3 mm CTs (22 vs.104 Agatston units, p < 0.001). Adjusted for traditional CVD risk factors, each standard deviation higher CAC score on 6 mm CTs was associated with 50% higher odds of death (odds ratio: 1.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.2 to 1.9), similar to 50% higher odds on the 3 mm ECG-gated CTs (odds ratio: 1.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.1 to 1.9). CONCLUSIONS: CAC scores on standard 6 mm chest CTs are strongly correlated with 3 mm ECG-gated CTs and similarly predict mortality in community-living individuals. Chest CTs performed for other clinical indications may provide an untapped resource to garner CVD risk information without additional radiation exposure or expense.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the correlation between coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores on 3 mm electrocardiography (ECG)-gated computed tomography (CT) scans and standard 6 mm chest CT scans, and to compare relative strength of associations of CAC on each scan type with mortality risk. BACKGROUND:Coronary artery calcification predicts cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality, and is typically measured on ECG-gated 3 mm CT scans. Patients undergo standard 6 mm chest CTs for various clinical indications much more frequently, but CAC is not usually quantified. To better understand the usefulness of standard chest CTs to quantify CAC, we conducted a case-control study among persons who had both scan types. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2003, 4,544 community-living individuals self- or physician-referred for "whole-body" CT scans, had 3 mm ECG-gated CTs and standard 6 mm chest CTs, and were followed for mortality through 2009. In this nested case-control study, we identified 157 deaths and 494 controls frequency matched (1:3) on age and sex. The Agatston method quantified CAC on both scan types. Unconditional logistic regression determined associations with mortality, accounting for CVD risk factors. RESULTS:Participants were 68 ± 11 years of age and 63% male. The Spearman correlation of CAC scores between the 2 scan types was 0.93 (p < 0.001); median CAC scores were lower on 6 mm CTs compared to 3 mm CTs (22 vs.104 Agatston units, p < 0.001). Adjusted for traditional CVD risk factors, each standard deviation higher CAC score on 6 mm CTs was associated with 50% higher odds of death (odds ratio: 1.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.2 to 1.9), similar to 50% higher odds on the 3 mm ECG-gated CTs (odds ratio: 1.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.1 to 1.9). CONCLUSIONS: CAC scores on standard 6 mm chest CTs are strongly correlated with 3 mm ECG-gated CTs and similarly predict mortality in community-living individuals. Chest CTs performed for other clinical indications may provide an untapped resource to garner CVD risk information without additional radiation exposure or expense.
Authors: Martha S Linet; Thomas L Slovis; Donald L Miller; Ruth Kleinerman; Choonsik Lee; Preetha Rajaraman; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Teresa Arcadi; Erica Maffei; Nicola Sverzellati; Cesare Mantini; Andrea I Guaricci; Carlo Tedeschi; Chiara Martini; Ludovico La Grutta; Filippo Cademartiri Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2014-06-28
Authors: Katherine J Blair; Matthew A Allison; Cindy Morgan; Christina L Wassel; Dena E Rifkin; C Michael Wright; Michael H Criqui; Joachim H Ix Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-03-09 Impact factor: 2.357
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: Richard A P Takx; Pim A de Jong; Tim Leiner; Matthijs Oudkerk; Harry J de Koning; Christian P Mol; Max A Viergever; Ivana Išgum Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Revathi Balakrishnan; Brian Nguyen; Roy Raad; Robert Donnino; David P Naidich; Jill E Jacobs; Harmony R Reynolds Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Veit Sandfort; Mark A Ahlman; Elizabeth C Jones; Mariana Selwaness; Marcus Y Chen; Les R Folio; David A Bluemke Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2016-04-20
Authors: Jacobo Kirsch; Felipe Martinez; David Lopez; Gian M Novaro; Craig R Asher Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Surya P Bhatt; Ella A Kazerooni; John D Newell; John E Hokanson; Matthew J Budoff; Chandra A Dass; Carlos H Martinez; Sandeep Bodduluri; Francine L Jacobson; Andrew Yen; Mark T Dransfield; Carl Fuhrman; Hrudaya Nath Journal: Chest Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Michael E Layoun; Eric H Yang; Joerg Herrmann; Cezar A Iliescu; Juan C Lopez-Mattei; Kostas Marmagkiolis; Matthew J Budoff; Maros Ferencik Journal: Curr Treat Options Oncol Date: 2019-05-06