Matthew Budoff1, Jye-Yu C Backlund2, David A Bluemke3, Joseph Polak4, Ionut Bebu2, David Schade5, Suzanne Strowig6, Philip Raskin6, John M Lachin2. 1. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-University of California Los Angeles School of Medicine, Torrance, California. Electronic address: Budoff@ucla.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, George Washington University, Rockville, Maryland. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. 4. Department of Medicine, Lemuel Shattuck Hospital and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the relationship between coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores and subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in DCCT (Diabetes Control and Complications Trial)/EDIC (Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications) participants. BACKGROUND: The CAC score has been validated for improved risk stratification in general populations; however, this association has not been well studied in type 1 diabetes (T1DM). METHODS:Computed tomography (CT) to measure CAC was performed in 1,205 DCCT/EDIC participants at a mean of 42.8 years of age during EDIC years 7 to 9, after the end of DCCT. This study analyzed the association between CAC and time to the first subsequent CVD event or to the first major adverse cardiac event (MACE), a follow-up of 10 to 13 years. CAC was categorized as: 0, >0 to 100, >100 to 300, or >300 Agatston units. RESULTS: Of 1,156 participants at risk for subsequent CVD, 105 had an initial CVD event (8.5 per 1,000 patient-years); and of 1,187 participants at risk for MACE, 51 had an initial MACE event (3.9 per 1,000 patient-years). Event rates among those with scores of zero (n = 817 [70.7%]) were very low for CVD (5.6 per 1,000 patient years). CAC scores >100 to 300 (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.17, 5.40) and >300 (HR: 6.06, 6.91) were associated with higher risks of CVD and MACE, respectively, compared to CAC of 0 (p < 0.0001). CAC scores >0 to 100 were nominally associated with CVD (HR: 1.71; p = 0.0415) but not with MACE (HR: 1.11; p = 0.8134). Similar results were observed when also adjusted for mean HbA1c and conventional CVD risk factors. The increment in the AUC due to CAC was modest. CONCLUSIONS:CAC scores >100 Agatston units were significantly associated with an increased risk of the subsequent occurrence of CVD and MACE in DCCT/EDIC cohort. (Diabetes Control and Complications Trial [DCCT]; NCT00360815; Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications [EDIC]; NCT00360893).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the relationship between coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores and subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in DCCT (Diabetes Control and Complications Trial)/EDIC (Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications) participants. BACKGROUND: The CAC score has been validated for improved risk stratification in general populations; however, this association has not been well studied in type 1 diabetes (T1DM). METHODS: Computed tomography (CT) to measure CAC was performed in 1,205 DCCT/EDICparticipants at a mean of 42.8 years of age during EDIC years 7 to 9, after the end of DCCT. This study analyzed the association between CAC and time to the first subsequent CVD event or to the first major adverse cardiac event (MACE), a follow-up of 10 to 13 years. CAC was categorized as: 0, >0 to 100, >100 to 300, or >300 Agatston units. RESULTS: Of 1,156 participants at risk for subsequent CVD, 105 had an initial CVD event (8.5 per 1,000 patient-years); and of 1,187 participants at risk for MACE, 51 had an initial MACE event (3.9 per 1,000 patient-years). Event rates among those with scores of zero (n = 817 [70.7%]) were very low for CVD (5.6 per 1,000 patient years). CAC scores >100 to 300 (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.17, 5.40) and >300 (HR: 6.06, 6.91) were associated with higher risks of CVD and MACE, respectively, compared to CAC of 0 (p < 0.0001). CAC scores >0 to 100 were nominally associated with CVD (HR: 1.71; p = 0.0415) but not with MACE (HR: 1.11; p = 0.8134). Similar results were observed when also adjusted for mean HbA1c and conventional CVD risk factors. The increment in the AUC due to CAC was modest. CONCLUSIONS: CAC scores >100 Agatston units were significantly associated with an increased risk of the subsequent occurrence of CVD and MACE in DCCT/EDIC cohort. (Diabetes Control and Complications Trial [DCCT]; NCT00360815; Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications [EDIC]; NCT00360893).
Authors: Philip Greenland; Joseph S Alpert; George A Beller; Emelia J Benjamin; Matthew J Budoff; Zahi A Fayad; Elyse Foster; Mark A Hlatky; John McB Hodgson; Frederick G Kushner; Michael S Lauer; Leslee J Shaw; Sidney C Smith; Allen J Taylor; William S Weintraub; Nanette K Wenger; Alice K Jacobs; Sidney C Smith; Jeffrey L Anderson; Nancy Albert; Christopher E Buller; Mark A Creager; Steven M Ettinger; Robert A Guyton; Jonathan L Halperin; Judith S Hochman; Frederick G Kushner; Rick Nishimura; E Magnus Ohman; Richard L Page; William G Stevenson; Lynn G Tarkington; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-12-14 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Parag H Joshi; Michael J Blaha; Matthew J Budoff; Michael D Miedema; Robyn L McClelland; Joao A C Lima; Arthur S Agatston; Ron Blankstein; Roger S Blumenthal; Khurram Nasir Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-08
Authors: John E Hokanson; Suzanne Cheng; Janet K Snell-Bergeon; Bonnie A Fijal; Michael A Grow; Chi Hung; Henry A Erlich; James Ehrlich; Robert H Eckel; Marian Rewers Journal: Diabetes Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Ronald B Goldberg; Vanita R Aroda; David A Bluemke; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Matthew Budoff; Jill P Crandall; Dana Dabelea; Edward S Horton; Kieren J Mather; Trevor J Orchard; David Schade; Karol Watson; Marinella Temprosa Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Janet K Snell-Bergeon; John E Hokanson; Lisa Jensen; Todd MacKenzie; Gregory Kinney; Dana Dabelea; Robert H Eckel; James Ehrlich; Satish Garg; Marian Rewers Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Matthew J Budoff; Paolo Raggi; George A Beller; Daniel S Berman; Regina S Druz; Shaista Malik; Vera H Rigolin; Wm Guy Weigold; Prem Soman Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-02
Authors: Shaista Malik; Matthew J Budoff; Ronit Katz; Roger S Blumenthal; Alain G Bertoni; Khurram Nasir; Moyses Szklo; R Graham Barr; Nathan D Wong Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-08-15 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Sarah D de Ferranti; Ian H de Boer; Vivian Fonseca; Caroline S Fox; Sherita Hill Golden; Carl J Lavie; Sheela N Magge; Nikolaus Marx; Darren K McGuire; Trevor J Orchard; Bernard Zinman; Robert H Eckel Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-08-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Omar Dzaye; Alexander C Razavi; Zeina A Dardari; Leslee J Shaw; Daniel S Berman; Matthew J Budoff; Michael D Miedema; Khurram Nasir; Alan Rozanski; John A Rumberger; Carl E Orringer; Sidney C Smith; Ron Blankstein; Seamus P Whelton; Martin Bødtker Mortensen; Michael J Blaha Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 27.203
Authors: Bruno Lapauw; Tine De Backer; Simon Helleputte; Luc Van Bortel; Francis Verbeke; Jos Op 't Roodt; Patrick Calders Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 8.949