Carl J Östgren1, Stefan Söderberg2, Karin Festin1, Oskar Angerås3,4, Göran Bergström4,5, Anders Blomberg2, John Brandberg6,7, Kerstin Cederlund8, Mats Eliasson2, Gunnar Engström9, David Erlinge10,11, Erika Fagman6,7, Emil Hagström12,13, Lars Lind12, Maria Mannila14, Ulf Nilsson2, Jonas Oldgren12,13, Ellen Ostenfeld10,11, Anders Persson1,15,16, Jonas Persson17, Margaretha Persson9,11, Annika Rosengren4,18, Johan Sundström12,19, Eva Swahn1,20, Jan E Engvall1,15,21, Tomas Jernberg17. 1. Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Sweden. 2. Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University, Sweden. 3. Department of Cardiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden. 4. Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. 5. Department of Clinical Physiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden. 6. Department of Radiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden. 7. Department of Radiology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. 8. Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden. 9. Department of Clinical Sciences in Malmö, Lund University, Sweden. 10. Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Sweden. 11. Skåne University Hospital, Sweden. 12. Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Sweden. 13. Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Sweden. 14. Department of Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. 15. Centre of Medical Image Science and Visualization, Linkoping University, Sweden. 16. Department of Radiology, Linköping University, Sweden. 17. Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd University Hospital, Sweden. 18. Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden. 19. The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Australia. 20. Department of Cardiology, Linköping University, Sweden. 21. Department of Clinical Physiology, Linköping University, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is not clear if the European Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation algorithm is useful for identifying prevalent subclinical atherosclerosis in a population of apparently healthy individuals. Our aim was to explore the association between the risk estimates from Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation and prevalent subclinical atherosclerosis. DESIGN: The design of this study was as a cross-sectional analysis from a population-based study cohort. METHODS: From the general population, the Swedish Cardiopulmonary Bioimage Study randomly invited individuals aged 50-64 years and enrolled 13,411 participants mean age 57 (standard deviation 4.3) years; 46% males between November 2013-December 2016. Associations between Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation risk estimates and coronary artery calcification and plaques in the carotid arteries by using imaging data from a computed tomography of the heart and ultrasonography of the carotid arteries were examined. RESULTS: Coronary calcification was present in 39.5% and carotid plaque in 56.0%. In men, coronary artery calcium score >0 ranged from 40.7-65.9% and presence of carotid plaques from 54.5% to 72.8% in the age group 50-54 and 60-65 years, respectively. In women, the corresponding difference was from 17.1-38.9% and from 41.0-58.4%. A doubling of Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation was associated with an increased probability to have coronary artery calcium score >0 (odds ratio: 2.18 (95% confidence interval 2.07-2.30)) and to have >1 carotid plaques (1.67 (1.61-1.74)). CONCLUSION: Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation estimated risk is associated with prevalent subclinical atherosclerosis in two major vascular beds in a general population sample without established cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus. Thus, the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation risk chart may be of use for estimating the risk of subclinical atherosclerosis.
BACKGROUND: It is not clear if the European Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation algorithm is useful for identifying prevalent subclinical atherosclerosis in a population of apparently healthy individuals. Our aim was to explore the association between the risk estimates from Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation and prevalent subclinical atherosclerosis. DESIGN: The design of this study was as a cross-sectional analysis from a population-based study cohort. METHODS: From the general population, the Swedish Cardiopulmonary Bioimage Study randomly invited individuals aged 50-64 years and enrolled 13,411 participants mean age 57 (standard deviation 4.3) years; 46% males between November 2013-December 2016. Associations between Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation risk estimates and coronary artery calcification and plaques in the carotid arteries by using imaging data from a computed tomography of the heart and ultrasonography of the carotid arteries were examined. RESULTS: Coronary calcification was present in 39.5% and carotid plaque in 56.0%. In men, coronary artery calcium score >0 ranged from 40.7-65.9% and presence of carotid plaques from 54.5% to 72.8% in the age group 50-54 and 60-65 years, respectively. In women, the corresponding difference was from 17.1-38.9% and from 41.0-58.4%. A doubling of Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation was associated with an increased probability to have coronary artery calcium score >0 (odds ratio: 2.18 (95% confidence interval 2.07-2.30)) and to have >1 carotid plaques (1.67 (1.61-1.74)). CONCLUSION: Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation estimated risk is associated with prevalent subclinical atherosclerosis in two major vascular beds in a general population sample without established cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus. Thus, the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation risk chart may be of use for estimating the risk of subclinical atherosclerosis.
Authors: Anna Bengtsson; Margareta Norberg; Nawi Ng; Bo Carlberg; Christer Grönlund; Johan Hultdin; Bernt Lindahl; Bertil Lindahl; Steven Nordin; Emma Nyman; Patrik Wennberg; Per Wester; Ulf Näslund Journal: Am J Prev Cardiol Date: 2021-05-21
Authors: Lars Barregard; Gerd Sallsten; Florencia Harari; Eva M Andersson; Niklas Forsgard; Ola Hjelmgren; Oskar Angerås; Erika Fagman; Margaretha Persson; Thomas Lundh; Yan Borné; Björn Fagerberg; Gunnar Engström; Göran Bergström Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 9.031