Dixitha Anugula1, Rhanderson Cardoso2, Gowtham R Grandhi3, Ron Blankstein2, Khurram Nasir4,5, Mouaz Al-Mallah1, Dipan J Shah1, Miguel Cainzos-Achirica6,7. 1. Division of Cardiac Imaging, Department of Cardiology, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Division of Cardiac Imaging, Department of Cardiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Prevention and Wellness, Department of Cardiology, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center, 6565 Fannin St Brown Bldg. B5-019, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 5. Center for Outcomes Research, Houston Methodist, Houston, TX, USA. 6. Division of Cardiovascular Prevention and Wellness, Department of Cardiology, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular Center, 6565 Fannin St Brown Bldg. B5-019, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. miguel.cainzos@gmail.com. 7. Center for Outcomes Research, Houston Methodist, Houston, TX, USA. miguel.cainzos@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The coronary artery calcium score is a guideline-endorsed aid for further risk stratification in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The non-contrast scan performed for detection of coronary artery calcium also gives an opportunity to visualize calcifications in the thoracic aorta and in the heart valves, at no additional cost or radiation exposure. The purpose of this review was to discuss the potential clinical value of measuring thoracic aortic calcification, aortic valve calcification, and mitral annulus calcification. RECENT FINDINGS: After two decades of active research, all three calcifications have been extensively evaluated, across various cohorts. We discuss classic and recent studies, current knowledge gaps, and future directions in this space. The added value of these measurements has traditionally been considered modest at best, and they are not currently discussed in relevant primary prevention guidelines in North America and Europe. However, recent studies evaluating high thoracic calcification thresholds and younger populations have further enriched this space. Specifically, some studies suggest that detection of severe thoracic aortic calcification may be helpful in further risk assessment and that detection of aortic valve calcifications may have important prognostic implications in younger individuals. Although more research is needed, particularly in larger young-to-middle-aged cohorts, future guidelines might consider including these features as risk-enhancing factors.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The coronary artery calcium score is a guideline-endorsed aid for further risk stratification in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The non-contrast scan performed for detection of coronary artery calcium also gives an opportunity to visualize calcifications in the thoracic aorta and in the heart valves, at no additional cost or radiation exposure. The purpose of this review was to discuss the potential clinical value of measuring thoracic aortic calcification, aortic valve calcification, and mitral annulus calcification. RECENT FINDINGS: After two decades of active research, all three calcifications have been extensively evaluated, across various cohorts. We discuss classic and recent studies, current knowledge gaps, and future directions in this space. The added value of these measurements has traditionally been considered modest at best, and they are not currently discussed in relevant primary prevention guidelines in North America and Europe. However, recent studies evaluating high thoracic calcification thresholds and younger populations have further enriched this space. Specifically, some studies suggest that detection of severe thoracic aortic calcification may be helpful in further risk assessment and that detection of aortic valve calcifications may have important prognostic implications in younger individuals. Although more research is needed, particularly in larger young-to-middle-aged cohorts, future guidelines might consider including these features as risk-enhancing factors.
Authors: Scott M Grundy; Neil J Stone; Alison L Bailey; Craig Beam; Kim K Birtcher; Roger S Blumenthal; Lynne T Braun; Sarah de Ferranti; Joseph Faiella-Tommasino; Daniel E Forman; Ronald Goldberg; Paul A Heidenreich; Mark A Hlatky; Daniel W Jones; Donald Lloyd-Jones; Nuria Lopez-Pajares; Chiadi E Ndumele; Carl E Orringer; Carmen A Peralta; Joseph J Saseen; Sidney C Smith; Laurence Sperling; Salim S Virani; Joseph Yeboah Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-11-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: John W McEvoy; Seth S Martin; Zeina A Dardari; Michael D Miedema; Veit Sandfort; Joseph Yeboah; Matthew J Budoff; David C Goff; Bruce M Psaty; Wendy S Post; Khurram Nasir; Roger S Blumenthal; Michael J Blaha Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 29.690
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: Michael D Miedema; Daniel A Duprez; Jeffrey R Misialek; Michael J Blaha; Khurram Nasir; Michael G Silverman; Ron Blankstein; Matthew J Budoff; Philip Greenland; Aaron R Folsom Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2014-05-06
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
Authors: Miguel Cainzos-Achirica; Michael D Miedema; John W McEvoy; Mahmoud Al Rifai; Philip Greenland; Zeina Dardari; Matthew Budoff; Roger S Blumenthal; Joseph Yeboah; Daniel A Duprez; Martin Bødtker Mortensen; Omar Dzaye; Jonathan Hong; Khurram Nasir; Michael J Blaha Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 29.690