Jesiana Ferreira Pedrosa1, Sandhi Maria Barreto2, Márcio Sommer Bittencourt3, Antonio Luiz Pinho Ribeiro2. 1. Faculdade de Medicina e Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Avenida Alfredo Balena 190, Bairro Santa Efigênia, Belo Horizonte, MG, 30130-100, Brazil. jesianafp@gmail.com. 2. Faculdade de Medicina e Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Avenida Alfredo Balena 190, Bairro Santa Efigênia, Belo Horizonte, MG, 30130-100, Brazil. 3. Faculdade de Medicina e Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Thoracic aortic calcium (TAC) has received some interest in recent studies as an important subclinical marker of atherosclerosis. Besides that, using computed tomography (CT) scans performed with cardiac or chest protocols, ECG-gated, or non-gated, TAC can be easily evaluated with no addition in radiation dose. This review discusses the particularities of the aortic wall calcium formation, as well as the differences between the aortic segments and summarizes the current status of TAC evaluation, mainly concerning the anatomical references used in the studies. RECENT FINDINGS: The studies have evaluated TAC considering different anatomical references. It was identified two different study groups. In the first one, researchers have analyzed the aorta as the sum of calcium in the ascending aorta (ATAC), aortic arch (AAC), and descending thoracic aorta (DTAC). The second group has used cardiac CT scans to assess TAC; therefore, they did not include AAC; however, the aortic root calcium (ARC) was added in the analysis. So, caution is advisable when interpreting and comparing studies that used different TAC anatomical references. The broad methodological variability, in addition to the variations in the population characteristics of the studies on TAC, may be in part contributing to the differences between results of different studies. Currently TAC does not have a role in clinical decisions, so it is necessary to create a standard protocol for the aortic calcium research as well as exists for the coronary artery calcium evaluation.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Thoracic aortic calcium (TAC) has received some interest in recent studies as an important subclinical marker of atherosclerosis. Besides that, using computed tomography (CT) scans performed with cardiac or chest protocols, ECG-gated, or non-gated, TAC can be easily evaluated with no addition in radiation dose. This review discusses the particularities of the aortic wall calcium formation, as well as the differences between the aortic segments and summarizes the current status of TAC evaluation, mainly concerning the anatomical references used in the studies. RECENT FINDINGS: The studies have evaluated TAC considering different anatomical references. It was identified two different study groups. In the first one, researchers have analyzed the aorta as the sum of calcium in the ascending aorta (ATAC), aortic arch (AAC), and descending thoracic aorta (DTAC). The second group has used cardiac CT scans to assess TAC; therefore, they did not include AAC; however, the aortic root calcium (ARC) was added in the analysis. So, caution is advisable when interpreting and comparing studies that used different TAC anatomical references. The broad methodological variability, in addition to the variations in the population characteristics of the studies on TAC, may be in part contributing to the differences between results of different studies. Currently TAC does not have a role in clinical decisions, so it is necessary to create a standard protocol for the aortic calcium research as well as exists for the coronary artery calcium evaluation.
Authors: Suzette E Elias-Smale; Arlette E Odink; Renske G Wieberdink; Albert Hofman; Myriam G M Hunink; Gabriel P Krestin; Peter J Koudstaal; Monique M B Breteler; Aad van der Lugt; Jacqueline C M Witteman Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2010-06-30 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Isac C Thomas; Robyn L McClelland; Erin D Michos; Matthew A Allison; Nketi I Forbang; W T Longstreth; Wendy S Post; Nathan D Wong; Matthew J Budoff; Michael H Criqui Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Jesiana F Pedrosa; Antonio Luiz P Ribeiro; Priscila C Santana; Larissa F Araújo; Sandhi M Barreto Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Matthew A Allison; Matthew J Budoff; Khurram Nasir; Nathan D Wong; Robert Detrano; Richard Kronmal; Junichiro Takasu; Michael H Criqui Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Kwok-Leung Ong; Robyn L McClelland; Kerry-Anne Rye; Bernard M Y Cheung; Wendy S Post; Dhananjay Vaidya; Michael H Criqui; Mary Cushman; Philip J Barter; Matthew A Allison Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2014-07-27 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Isac C Thomas; Robyn L McClelland; Matthew A Allison; Joachim H Ix; Erin D Michos; Nketi I Forbang; Wendy S Post; Nathan D Wong; Matthew J Budoff; Michael H Criqui Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Elton A M P Dudink; Frederique E C M Peeters; Sibel Altintas; Luuk I B Heckman; Rutger J Haest; Hans Kragten; Bas L J H Kietselaer; Joachim Wildberger; Justin G L M Luermans; Bob Weijs; Harry J G M Crijns Journal: Open Heart Date: 2018-11-24
Authors: Rosa Maria Bruno; Bart Spronck; Bernhard Hametner; Alun Hughes; Patrick Lacolley; Christopher C Mayer; Maria Lorenza Muiesan; Chakravarthi Rajkumar; Dimitrios Terentes-Printzios; Thomas Weber; Tine Willum Hansen; Pierre Boutouyrie Journal: Artery Res Date: 2020 Impact factor: 0.597