Why the study?
Do subclinical cardiovascular disease markers, particularly coronary artery calcium, improve risk prediction for incident CHD and CVD compared to traditional risk factors?
Do subclinical cardiovascular disease markers, particularly coronary artery calcium, improve risk prediction for incident CHD and CVD compared to traditional risk factors?
Measures of subclinical cardiovascular disease, particularly the coronary artery calcium score, add significant prognostic value to traditional risk variables and improve risk classification for primary prevention.
Supports CAC integration for refined CHD stratification in diverse groups; extends Framingham with subclinical measures in observational cohorts.
When the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) began, the Framingham risk score was the preferred tool for 10-year global coronary heart disease risk assessment; however, the Framingham risk score had limitations including derivation in a homogenous population lacking racial and ethnic diversity and exclusive reliance on traditional risk factors without consideration of most subclinical disease measures. MESA was designed to study the prognostic value of subclinical atherosclerosis and other risk markers in a multiethnic population. In a series of landmark publications, MESA demonstrated that measures of subclinical cardiovascular disease add significant prognostic value to the traditional Framingham risk variables. In head-to-head studies comparing these markers, MESA established that the coronary artery calcium score may be the single best predictor of coronary heart disease risk. Results from MESA have directly influenced recent prevention guidelines including the recommendations on risk assessment and cholesterol-lowering therapy. The MESA study has published its own risk score, which allows for the calculation of 10-year risk of coronary heart disease before and after knowledge of a coronary artery calcium score.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Blaha et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: