Vasanth Sathiyakumar1, Roger S Blumenthal1, Khurram Nasir1,2,3,4, Seth S Martin5. 1. Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, 600 N Wolfe St, Carnegie 591, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. 2. Center for Healthcare Advancement and Outcomes & Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, FL, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Robert Stempel College of Public Health, Miami, FL, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. 5. Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, 600 N Wolfe St, Carnegie 591, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. smart100@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) has been proposed as an integrator of information from traditionally measured, non-traditionally measured, and unmeasured risk factors for coronary atherosclerosis. The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk identified several knowledge gaps regarding CAC, including radiation risks, cost-effectiveness, and improving discrimination and reclassification of estimated risk over the Pooled Cohort Equations in the ACC/AHA Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Estimator. In this review, we focus on recent CAC literature addressing these knowledge gaps. We further highlight the potential for CAC to enrich future randomized controlled trials. RECENT FINDINGS: The use of CAC allows for personalization of cardiovascular risk despite the presence or absence of traditional risk factors across many demographics. Avenues to reduce radiation exposure associated with CAC scanning include increasing the interval between scans for those with CAC scores of zero and estimating CAC from non-cardiac gated CT scans. While limited studies have suggested cost-effectiveness in cardiac risk assessment with the incorporation of CAC in screening algorithms, several studies have demonstrated the ability of CAC to identify non-traditional risk factors that may be used to expand cardiovascular risk personalization in other high-risk populations. Literature from the past 2 years further supports CAC as a strong marker to personalize cardiac risk assessment. While multiple potential avenues to reduce radiation are available and cost-effectiveness analyses are encouraging, further studies are necessary to clarify patient selection for CAC scanning given the interplay between CAC and other imaging modalities in risk personalization algorithms.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) has been proposed as an integrator of information from traditionally measured, non-traditionally measured, and unmeasured risk factors for coronary atherosclerosis. The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk identified several knowledge gaps regarding CAC, including radiation risks, cost-effectiveness, and improving discrimination and reclassification of estimated risk over the Pooled Cohort Equations in the ACC/AHA Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Estimator. In this review, we focus on recent CAC literature addressing these knowledge gaps. We further highlight the potential for CAC to enrich future randomized controlled trials. RECENT FINDINGS: The use of CAC allows for personalization of cardiovascular risk despite the presence or absence of traditional risk factors across many demographics. Avenues to reduce radiation exposure associated with CAC scanning include increasing the interval between scans for those with CAC scores of zero and estimating CAC from non-cardiac gated CT scans. While limited studies have suggested cost-effectiveness in cardiac risk assessment with the incorporation of CAC in screening algorithms, several studies have demonstrated the ability of CAC to identify non-traditional risk factors that may be used to expand cardiovascular risk personalization in other high-risk populations. Literature from the past 2 years further supports CAC as a strong marker to personalize cardiac risk assessment. While multiple potential avenues to reduce radiation are available and cost-effectiveness analyses are encouraging, further studies are necessary to clarify patient selection for CAC scanning given the interplay between CAC and other imaging modalities in risk personalization algorithms.
Authors: James K Min; Fay Y Lin; David S Gidseg; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Daniel S Berman; Leslee J Shaw; Alan Rozanski; Tracy Q Callister Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: E M Engbers; J R Timmer; M Mouden; P L Jager; S Knollema; A H J Oostdijk; J P Ottervanger Journal: J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr Date: 2016-04-11
Authors: Joel D Kaufman; Sara D Adar; R Graham Barr; Matthew Budoff; Gregory L Burke; Cynthia L Curl; Martha L Daviglus; Ana V Diez Roux; Amanda J Gassett; David R Jacobs; Richard Kronmal; Timothy V Larson; Ana Navas-Acien; Casey Olives; Paul D Sampson; Lianne Sheppard; David S Siscovick; James H Stein; Adam A Szpiro; Karol E Watson Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Simon Winther; My Svensson; Hanne Skou Jørgensen; Kirsten Bouchelouche; Lars Christian Gormsen; Birgitte Bang Pedersen; Niels Ramsing Holm; Hans Erik Bøtker; Per Ivarsen; Morten Bøttcher Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-04-10
Authors: Heather R Millard; Solomon K Musani; Daniel T Dibaba; Sameera A Talegawkar; Herman A Taylor; Katherine L Tucker; Aurelian Bidulescu Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: Isabela M Bensenor; Alessandra C Goulart; Itamar S Santos; Márcio S Bittencourt; Alexandre C Pereira; Raul D Santos; Khurram Nasir; Ron Blankstein; Paulo A Lotufo Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2016-01-04 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Mathias Possner; Riccardo Liga; Thomas Gaisl; Jan Vontobel; Olivier F Clerc; Fran Mikulicic; Dominik C Benz; Christoph Gräni; Julia Stehli; Tobias A Fuchs; Damini Dey; Aju P Pazhenkottil; Bernhard A Herzog; Oliver Gaemperli; Ronny R Buechel; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Ashish R Panchal; Rebecca E Cash; Remle P Crowe; Ryan Coute; David Way; Tom Aufderheide; Raina M Merchant Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-06-30 Impact factor: 5.501