Why the study?
Statin treatment decisions rely on pooled cohort equations that make most older middle-aged women statin eligible, but several studies cast doubt on their reliability for ASCVD risk assessment.
Does coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring improve ASCVD risk assessment and statin treatment decisions compared to pooled cohort equations in older middle-aged women?
Does coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring improve ASCVD risk assessment and statin treatment decisions compared to pooled cohort equations in older middle-aged women?
CAC scoring provides a more reliable method than pooled cohort equations for guiding statin therapy decisions in older middle-aged women for primary prevention.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support deferring statins via CAC in older women; leaves open randomized validation versus PCEs.
By current guidelines, statin treatment decisions depend on multiple risk factor algorithms (e.g., pooled cohort equations [PCEs]). By available PCEs most older middle-aged women are statin eligible. But several studies cast doubt on reliability of available PCEs for ASCVD risk assessment. An alternative method for risk assessment is a coronary artery calcium (CAC) score. Many older women have zero CAC, which equates to low risk for ASCVD; these women can delay statin therapy for several years before re-scanning. When CAC is 1-99 Agatston units, risk is only borderline high and statin delay also is an option until re-scanning. When CAC is > 100 Agatston units, risk is high enough to warrant a statin. In most women, CAC is the best guide to treatment decisions. In high-risk women (e.g., diabetes and severe hypercholesterolemia), generally are indicated, but CAC can assist in risk assessment, but other risk factors also can aid in treatment decisions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Grundy et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: