Key result
CAC score >1,000 is linked to a ~12-fold higher all-cause mortality risk versus zero CAC.
Why the study?
Does coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring improve the prediction of all-cause mortality beyond traditional risk factors in asymptomatic individuals?
Observational (n=25,253)
Does coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring improve the prediction of all-cause mortality beyond traditional risk factors in asymptomatic individuals?
Relative Risk: 12.5
p-value: p=<0.0001
Coronary artery calcium scoring provides independent, incremental prognostic information beyond traditional risk factors for predicting all-cause mortality in asymptomatic individuals.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to develop risk-adjusted multivariable models that include risk factors and coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores measured with electron-beam tomography in asymptomatic patients for the prediction of all-cause mortality. BACKGROUND: Several smaller studies have documented the efficacy of CAC testing for assessment of cardiovascular risk. Larger studies with longer follow-up will lend strength to the hypothesis that CAC testing will improve outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and safety of primary prevention efforts. METHODS: We used an observational outcome study of a cohort of 25,253 consecutive, asymptomatic individuals referred by their primary physician for CAC scanning to assess cardiovascular risk. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were developed to predict all-cause mortality. Risk-adjusted models incorporated traditional risk factors for coronary disease and CAC scores. RESULTS: The frequency of CAC scores was 44%, 14%, 20%, 13%, 6%, and 4% for scores of 0, 1 to 10, 11 to 100, 101 to 400, 401 to 1,000, and >1,000, respectively. During a mean follow-up of 6.8 +/- 3 years, the death rate was 2% (510 deaths). The CAC was an independent predictor of mortality in a multivariable model controlling for age, gender, ethnicity, and cardiac risk factors (model chi-square = 2,017, p < 0.0001). The addition of CAC to traditional risk factors increased the concordance index significantly (0.61 for risk factors vs. 0.81 for the CAC score, p < 0.0001). Risk-adjusted relative risk ratios for CAC were 2.2-, 4.5-, 6.4-, 9.2-, 10.4-, and 12.5-fold for scores of 11 to 100, 101 to 299, 300 to 399, 400 to 699, 700 to 999, and >1,000, respectively (p < 0.0001), when compared with a score of 0. Ten-year survival (after adjustment for risk factors, including age) was 99.4% for a CAC score of 0 and worsened to 87.8% for a score of >1,000 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This large observational data series shows that CAC provides independent incremental information in addition to traditional risk factors in the prediction of all-cause mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Budoff et al. (2007) conducted an observational in Cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic individuals (n=25,253). Coronary artery calcium (CAC) score vs. CAC score of 0 was evaluated on All-cause mortality (RR 12.5, p=<0.0001). Higher coronary artery calcium scores independently predicted all-cause mortality, with a 12.5-fold increased relative risk for scores >1,000 compared to a score of 0 (P<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: