Maryam Kavousi1, Chintan S Desai2, Colby Ayers3, Roger S Blumenthal2, Matthew J Budoff4, Amir-Abbas Mahabadi5, M Arfan Ikram6, Aad van der Lugt7, Albert Hofman8, Raimund Erbel9, Amit Khera10, Marie H Geisel9, Karl-Heinz Jöckel9, Nils Lehmann9, Udo Hoffmann11, Christopher J O'Donnell12, Joseph M Massaro13, Kiang Liu14, Stefan Möhlenkamp15, Hongyan Ning14, Oscar H Franco1, Philip Greenland16. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Division of Cardiology, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Division of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 4. Division of Cardiology, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles. 5. Department of Cardiology, West German Heart and Vascular Center, University Clinic Essen, Essen, Germany. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands6Department of Radiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands7Department of Neurology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 7. Department of Radiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 8. Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands8Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 9. Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry, and Epidemiology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 10. Division of Cardiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 11. Cardiac MR PET CT Program, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. 12. Cardiology Division, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston13National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's Framingham Heart Study, Framingham, Massachusetts14National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 13. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's Framingham Heart Study, Framingham, Massachusetts15Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 14. Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 15. Krankenhaus Bethanien, Department of Cardiology, Moers, Germany. 16. Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois18Senior Editor, JAMA.
Abstract
Importance: The role of coronary artery calcium (CAC) testing for guiding preventive strategies among women at low cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk based on the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association CVD prevention guidelines is unclear. Objective: To assess the potential utility of CAC testing for CVD risk estimation and stratification among low-risk women. Design, Setting, and Participants: Women with 10-year atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) risk lower than 7.5% from 5 large population-based cohorts: the Dallas Heart Study (United States), the Framingham Heart Study (United States), the Heinz Nixdorf Recall study (Germany), the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (United States), and the Rotterdam Study (the Netherlands). The 5 cohorts were selected based on the availability of CAC data in a sizable group of low-risk women from the general population together with the long detailed follow-up data. Across the cohorts, events were assessed from the date of CAC scan (performed from 1998 through 2006) until January 1, 2012; January 1, 2014; or March 6, 2015. Fixed-effects meta-analysis was conducted to combine the results of the 5 studies. Exposures: CAC score by computed tomography. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcome was incident ASCVD, including nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease (CHD) death, and stroke. Association of CAC with ASCVD was examined using Cox proportional hazards models. To assess whether CAC was associated with improved ASCVD risk predictions beyond the traditional risk factors, the C statistic and the continuous net reclassification improvement (cNRI) index were calculated. Results: Among 6739 women with low ASCVD risk from the 5 studies, mean age ranged from 44 to 63 years and CAC was present in 36.1%. Across the cohorts, median follow-up ranged from 7.0 to 11.6 years. A total of 165 ASCVD events occurred (64 nonfatal myocardial infarctions, 29 CHD deaths, and 72 strokes), with the ASCVD incidence rates ranging from 1.5 to 6.0 per 1000 person-years. Compared with the absence of CAC (CAC = 0), presence of CAC (CAC >0) was associated with an increased risk of ASCVD (incidence rates per 1000 person-years, 1.41 for CAC absence vs 4.33 for CAC presence; difference, 2.92 [95% CI, 2.02-3.83]; multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio, 2.04 [95% CI, 1.44-2.90]). The addition of CAC to traditional risk factors improved the C statistic from 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.77) to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) and provided a cNRI of 0.20 (95% CI, 0.09-0.31) for ASCVD prediction. Conclusions and Relevance: Among women at low ASCVD risk, CAC was present in approximately one-third and was associated with an increased risk of ASCVD and modest improvement in prognostic accuracy compared with traditional risk factors. Further research is needed to assess the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of this additional accuracy.
Importance: The role of coronary artery calcium (CAC) testing for guiding preventive strategies among women at low cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk based on the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association CVD prevention guidelines is unclear. Objective: To assess the potential utility of CAC testing for CVD risk estimation and stratification among low-risk women. Design, Setting, and Participants: Women with 10-year atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) risk lower than 7.5% from 5 large population-based cohorts: the Dallas Heart Study (United States), the Framingham Heart Study (United States), the Heinz Nixdorf Recall study (Germany), the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (United States), and the Rotterdam Study (the Netherlands). The 5 cohorts were selected based on the availability of CAC data in a sizable group of low-risk women from the general population together with the long detailed follow-up data. Across the cohorts, events were assessed from the date of CAC scan (performed from 1998 through 2006) until January 1, 2012; January 1, 2014; or March 6, 2015. Fixed-effects meta-analysis was conducted to combine the results of the 5 studies. Exposures: CAC score by computed tomography. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcome was incident ASCVD, including nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease (CHD) death, and stroke. Association of CAC with ASCVD was examined using Cox proportional hazards models. To assess whether CAC was associated with improved ASCVD risk predictions beyond the traditional risk factors, the C statistic and the continuous net reclassification improvement (cNRI) index were calculated. Results: Among 6739 women with low ASCVD risk from the 5 studies, mean age ranged from 44 to 63 years and CAC was present in 36.1%. Across the cohorts, median follow-up ranged from 7.0 to 11.6 years. A total of 165 ASCVD events occurred (64 nonfatal myocardial infarctions, 29 CHD deaths, and 72 strokes), with the ASCVD incidence rates ranging from 1.5 to 6.0 per 1000 person-years. Compared with the absence of CAC (CAC = 0), presence of CAC (CAC >0) was associated with an increased risk of ASCVD (incidence rates per 1000 person-years, 1.41 for CAC absence vs 4.33 for CAC presence; difference, 2.92 [95% CI, 2.02-3.83]; multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio, 2.04 [95% CI, 1.44-2.90]). The addition of CAC to traditional risk factors improved the C statistic from 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.77) to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) and provided a cNRI of 0.20 (95% CI, 0.09-0.31) for ASCVD prediction. Conclusions and Relevance: Among women at low ASCVD risk, CAC was present in approximately one-third and was associated with an increased risk of ASCVD and modest improvement in prognostic accuracy compared with traditional risk factors. Further research is needed to assess the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of this additional accuracy.
Authors: I G Poornima; K Shields; L H Kuller; S M Manzi; R Ramsey-Goldman; C Richardson; E Rhew; D D Dunlop; J Song; D Edmundowicz; G T Kondos; J J Carr; C B Langman; H Price; A H Chung; L B Santelices; R H Mackey Journal: Lupus Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 2.911
Authors: Ramzi Dudum; Omar Dzaye; Mohammadhassan Mirbolouk; Zeina A Dardari; Olusola A Orimoloye; Matthew J Budoff; Daniel S Berman; Alan Rozanski; Michael D Miedema; Khurram Nasir; John A Rumberger; Leslee Shaw; Seamus P Whelton; Garth Graham; Michael J Blaha Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2019-03-27
Authors: M Arfan Ikram; Guy G O Brusselle; Sarwa Darwish Murad; Cornelia M van Duijn; Oscar H Franco; André Goedegebure; Caroline C W Klaver; Tamar E C Nijsten; Robin P Peeters; Bruno H Stricker; Henning Tiemeier; André G Uitterlinden; Meike W Vernooij; Albert Hofman Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Philip Greenland; Michael J Blaha; Matthew J Budoff; Raimund Erbel; Karol E Watson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Donna K Arnett; Roger S Blumenthal; Michelle A Albert; Andrew B Buroker; Zachary D Goldberger; Ellen J Hahn; Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb; Amit Khera; Donald Lloyd-Jones; J William McEvoy; Erin D Michos; Michael D Miedema; Daniel Muñoz; Sidney C Smith; Salim S Virani; Kim A Williams; Joseph Yeboah; Boback Ziaeian Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-03-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Donna K Arnett; Roger S Blumenthal; Michelle A Albert; Andrew B Buroker; Zachary D Goldberger; Ellen J Hahn; Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb; Amit Khera; Donald Lloyd-Jones; J William McEvoy; Erin D Michos; Michael D Miedema; Daniel Muñoz; Sidney C Smith; Salim S Virani; Kim A Williams; Joseph Yeboah; Boback Ziaeian Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-03-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Donna K Arnett; Roger S Blumenthal; Michelle A Albert; Andrew B Buroker; Zachary D Goldberger; Ellen J Hahn; Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb; Amit Khera; Donald Lloyd-Jones; J William McEvoy; Erin D Michos; Michael D Miedema; Daniel Muñoz; Sidney C Smith; Salim S Virani; Kim A Williams; Joseph Yeboah; Boback Ziaeian Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-03-17 Impact factor: 29.690