Progression of CAC Score and Risk of Incident CVD

Nina B. Radford, Laura F. DeFina, Carolyn E. Barlow, Susan G. Lakoski, David Leonard, Andre R M Paixao, Amit Khera, Benjamin D. Levine

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The authors sought to determine the relative contributions of baseline coronary artery calcification (CAC), follow-up CAC, and CAC progression on incident cardiovascular disease (CVD). Background: Repeat CAC scanning has been proposed as a method to track progression of total atherosclerotic burden. However, whether CAC progression is a useful predictor of future CVD events remains unclear. Methods: This was a prospective observational study of 5,933 participants free of CVD who underwent 2 examinations, including CAC scores, and subsequent CVD event assessment. CAC progression was calculated using the square root method. The primary outcome was total CVD events (CVD death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal atherosclerotic stroke, coronary artery bypass surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention). Secondary outcomes included hard CVD events, total coronary heart disease (CHD) events, and hard CHD events. Results: CAC was detected at baseline in 2,870 individuals (48%). The average time between scans was 3.5 ± 2.0 years. After their second scan, 161 individuals experienced a total CVD event during a mean follow-up of 7.3 years. CAC progression was significantly associated with total CVD events (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.30 per interquartile range; p = 0.042) in the model including baseline CAC, but the contribution of CAC progression was small relative to baseline CAC (chi square 4.16 vs. 65.92). Furthermore, CAC progression was not associated with total CVD events in the model including follow-up CAC instead of baseline CAC (hazard ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.21; p = 0.475). A model that included follow-up CAC alone performed as well as the model that included baseline CAC and CAC progression. Conclusions: Although CAC progression was independently, but modestly, associated with CVD outcomes, this relationship was no longer significant when including follow-up CAC in the model. These findings imply that if serial CAC scanning is performed, the latest scan should be used for risk assessment, and in this context, CAC progression provides no additional prognostic information.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jul 20 2015

Fingerprint

Coronary Vessels
Cardiovascular Diseases
Coronary Disease
Confidence Intervals
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Coronary Artery Bypass

Keywords

  • Imaging
  • Outcomes
  • Subclinical atherosclerosis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Radford, N. B., DeFina, L. F., Barlow, C. E., Lakoski, S. G., Leonard, D., Paixao, A. R. M., ... Levine, B. D. (Accepted/In press). Progression of CAC Score and Risk of Incident CVD. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.03.010

Progression of CAC Score and Risk of Incident CVD. / Radford, Nina B.; DeFina, Laura F.; Barlow, Carolyn E.; Lakoski, Susan G.; Leonard, David; Paixao, Andre R M; Khera, Amit; Levine, Benjamin D.

In: JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 20.07.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Radford NB, DeFina LF, Barlow CE, Lakoski SG, Leonard D, Paixao ARM et al. Progression of CAC Score and Risk of Incident CVD. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2015 Jul 20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.03.010
Radford, Nina B. ; DeFina, Laura F. ; Barlow, Carolyn E. ; Lakoski, Susan G. ; Leonard, David ; Paixao, Andre R M ; Khera, Amit ; Levine, Benjamin D. / Progression of CAC Score and Risk of Incident CVD. In: JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2015.
@article{4cfd548b3dd84d4298b99095b69dfa34,
title = "Progression of CAC Score and Risk of Incident CVD",
abstract = "Objectives: The authors sought to determine the relative contributions of baseline coronary artery calcification (CAC), follow-up CAC, and CAC progression on incident cardiovascular disease (CVD). Background: Repeat CAC scanning has been proposed as a method to track progression of total atherosclerotic burden. However, whether CAC progression is a useful predictor of future CVD events remains unclear. Methods: This was a prospective observational study of 5,933 participants free of CVD who underwent 2 examinations, including CAC scores, and subsequent CVD event assessment. CAC progression was calculated using the square root method. The primary outcome was total CVD events (CVD death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal atherosclerotic stroke, coronary artery bypass surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention). Secondary outcomes included hard CVD events, total coronary heart disease (CHD) events, and hard CHD events. Results: CAC was detected at baseline in 2,870 individuals (48{\%}). The average time between scans was 3.5 ± 2.0 years. After their second scan, 161 individuals experienced a total CVD event during a mean follow-up of 7.3 years. CAC progression was significantly associated with total CVD events (hazard ratio 1.14, 95{\%} confidence interval 1.01 to 1.30 per interquartile range; p = 0.042) in the model including baseline CAC, but the contribution of CAC progression was small relative to baseline CAC (chi square 4.16 vs. 65.92). Furthermore, CAC progression was not associated with total CVD events in the model including follow-up CAC instead of baseline CAC (hazard ratio 1.05, 95{\%} confidence interval 0.92 to 1.21; p = 0.475). A model that included follow-up CAC alone performed as well as the model that included baseline CAC and CAC progression. Conclusions: Although CAC progression was independently, but modestly, associated with CVD outcomes, this relationship was no longer significant when including follow-up CAC in the model. These findings imply that if serial CAC scanning is performed, the latest scan should be used for risk assessment, and in this context, CAC progression provides no additional prognostic information.",
keywords = "Imaging, Outcomes, Subclinical atherosclerosis",
author = "Radford, {Nina B.} and DeFina, {Laura F.} and Barlow, {Carolyn E.} and Lakoski, {Susan G.} and David Leonard and Paixao, {Andre R M} and Amit Khera and Levine, {Benjamin D.}",
year = "2015",
month = "7",
day = "20",
doi = "10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.03.010",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging",
issn = "1936-878X",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Progression of CAC Score and Risk of Incident CVD

AU - Radford, Nina B.

AU - DeFina, Laura F.

AU - Barlow, Carolyn E.

AU - Lakoski, Susan G.

AU - Leonard, David

AU - Paixao, Andre R M

AU - Khera, Amit

AU - Levine, Benjamin D.

PY - 2015/7/20

Y1 - 2015/7/20

N2 - Objectives: The authors sought to determine the relative contributions of baseline coronary artery calcification (CAC), follow-up CAC, and CAC progression on incident cardiovascular disease (CVD). Background: Repeat CAC scanning has been proposed as a method to track progression of total atherosclerotic burden. However, whether CAC progression is a useful predictor of future CVD events remains unclear. Methods: This was a prospective observational study of 5,933 participants free of CVD who underwent 2 examinations, including CAC scores, and subsequent CVD event assessment. CAC progression was calculated using the square root method. The primary outcome was total CVD events (CVD death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal atherosclerotic stroke, coronary artery bypass surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention). Secondary outcomes included hard CVD events, total coronary heart disease (CHD) events, and hard CHD events. Results: CAC was detected at baseline in 2,870 individuals (48%). The average time between scans was 3.5 ± 2.0 years. After their second scan, 161 individuals experienced a total CVD event during a mean follow-up of 7.3 years. CAC progression was significantly associated with total CVD events (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.30 per interquartile range; p = 0.042) in the model including baseline CAC, but the contribution of CAC progression was small relative to baseline CAC (chi square 4.16 vs. 65.92). Furthermore, CAC progression was not associated with total CVD events in the model including follow-up CAC instead of baseline CAC (hazard ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.21; p = 0.475). A model that included follow-up CAC alone performed as well as the model that included baseline CAC and CAC progression. Conclusions: Although CAC progression was independently, but modestly, associated with CVD outcomes, this relationship was no longer significant when including follow-up CAC in the model. These findings imply that if serial CAC scanning is performed, the latest scan should be used for risk assessment, and in this context, CAC progression provides no additional prognostic information.

AB - Objectives: The authors sought to determine the relative contributions of baseline coronary artery calcification (CAC), follow-up CAC, and CAC progression on incident cardiovascular disease (CVD). Background: Repeat CAC scanning has been proposed as a method to track progression of total atherosclerotic burden. However, whether CAC progression is a useful predictor of future CVD events remains unclear. Methods: This was a prospective observational study of 5,933 participants free of CVD who underwent 2 examinations, including CAC scores, and subsequent CVD event assessment. CAC progression was calculated using the square root method. The primary outcome was total CVD events (CVD death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal atherosclerotic stroke, coronary artery bypass surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention). Secondary outcomes included hard CVD events, total coronary heart disease (CHD) events, and hard CHD events. Results: CAC was detected at baseline in 2,870 individuals (48%). The average time between scans was 3.5 ± 2.0 years. After their second scan, 161 individuals experienced a total CVD event during a mean follow-up of 7.3 years. CAC progression was significantly associated with total CVD events (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.30 per interquartile range; p = 0.042) in the model including baseline CAC, but the contribution of CAC progression was small relative to baseline CAC (chi square 4.16 vs. 65.92). Furthermore, CAC progression was not associated with total CVD events in the model including follow-up CAC instead of baseline CAC (hazard ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.21; p = 0.475). A model that included follow-up CAC alone performed as well as the model that included baseline CAC and CAC progression. Conclusions: Although CAC progression was independently, but modestly, associated with CVD outcomes, this relationship was no longer significant when including follow-up CAC in the model. These findings imply that if serial CAC scanning is performed, the latest scan should be used for risk assessment, and in this context, CAC progression provides no additional prognostic information.

KW - Imaging

KW - Outcomes

KW - Subclinical atherosclerosis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84978477163&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84978477163&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.03.010

DO - 10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.03.010

M3 - Article

C2 - 27372023

AN - SCOPUS:84978477163

JO - JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging

JF - JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging

SN - 1936-878X

ER -