Key result
Coronary artery calcium presence is linked to ~4.1-fold higher odds of exaggerated exercise blood pressure response.
Why the study?
The relationship between the individual components of the Agatston score—coronary artery calcium volume, density, and simple presence—and exaggerated blood pressure response during exercise remains poorly understood.
Does the presence of coronary artery calcium (CAC > 0), or its specific volume and density components, predict an exaggerated blood pressure response during exercise in patients attending a heart screening program?
Cross-Sectional (n=351)
Does the presence of coronary artery calcium (CAC > 0), or its specific volume and density components, predict an exaggerated blood pressure response during exercise in patients attending a heart screening program?
The mere presence of coronary artery calcium (CAC > 0), rather than plaque volume or density, strongly predicts an exaggerated blood pressure response during exercise (OR 4.14), highlighting the need for close blood pressure monitoring in any patient with detectable coronary calcification.
EBPR may flag subclinical coronary calcification; leaves open whether CAC burden or presence drives exercise hypertension risk.
Background Exaggerated blood pressure response (EBPR) during exercise is a validated marker of increased cardiovascular risk and arterial stiffness. While the Agatston score is the gold standard for structural plaque burden, the relationship between its individual components—volume and density—and functional vascular impairment (EBPR) remain poorly understood. Objective To investigate whether EBPR correlates more closely with the total structural burden(volume), the plaque stability (density), or the simple presence (CAC > 0) of coronary artery calcium Method We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 351 patients (mean age 54.7 ± 10.9 years) who attended a heart screening program and underwent both coronary CT calcium scoring and exercise stress testing within the same day. CAC was decomposed into total volume (mm³) and mean density score (Agatston/Volume ratio). EBPR was defined as peak systolic blood pressure ≥ 210 mmHg (males) or ≥ 190 mmHg (females). The association was assessed via chi-square and Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios. Differences in continuous variables (volume, density, and score) were analyzed using independent samples T-tests. Results The transition from a zero (15 of 157 pts) to a non-zero CAC score (59 of 194 pts) was the single most potent predictor of exercise-induced hypertension, carrying a 4.14-fold increase in the odds of EBPR (95% CI: 2.24–7.64, p < .001). However, once this threshold was crossed, the "severity" of the disease appeared to reach a functional plateau. We observed no statistically significant differences in the mean calcium density between patients with and without EBPR (0.98 ± 0.22 vs 1.00 ± 0.30, p = 0.628), nor were there significant differences in mean calcium volume (291 ± 549 vs 254 ± 547, p = 0.668) or total Agatston Score (342 ± 675 vs 305 ± 685, p = 0.724). Conclusion Coronary calcification acts as a "binary switch" for functional vascular impairment. Our findings identify a "threshold phenomenon" where the mere presence of plaque— regardless of its mineral density or total volume—predicts an exaggerated blood pressure response (OR 4.14). This suggests that the transition to a calcified phenotype represents a critical loss of arterial compliance, necessitating aggressive BP monitoring for any patient with a non-zero CAC score.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wuttichaipradit et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Exaggerated blood pressure response (EBPR) during exercise and coronary artery calcification (CAC) (n=351). Non-zero coronary artery calcium (CAC > 0) vs. Zero coronary artery calcium (CAC = 0) was evaluated on Exaggerated blood pressure response (EBPR) during exercise (peak systolic blood pressure ≥ 210 mmHg in males or ≥ 190 mmHg in females) (OR 4.14, 95% CI 2.24-7.64, p=< .001). Coronary artery calcium presence (CAC > 0 vs 0) predicted exaggerated exercise blood pressure response (OR 4.14; 95% CI 2.24–7.64; p<0.001), unlike CAC volume or density.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: