Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring: Is It Time for a Change in Methodology?

Michael Blaha, Martin Bødtker Mortensen, Sina Kianoush, Rajesh Tota-Maharaj, Miguel Cainzos-Achirica

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Quantification of coronary artery calcium (CAC) has been shown to be reliable, reproducible, and predictive of cardiovascular risk. Formal CAC scoring was introduced in 1990, with early scoring algorithms notable for their simplicity and elegance. Yet, with little evidence available on how to best build a score, and without a conceptual model guiding score development, these scores were, to a large degree, arbitrary. In this review, we describe the traditional approaches for clinical CAC scoring, noting their strengths, weaknesses, and limitations. We then discuss a conceptual model for developing an improved CAC score, reviewing the evidence supporting approaches most likely to lead to meaningful score improvement (for example, accounting for CAC density and regional distribution). After discussing the potential implementation of an improved score in clinical practice, we follow with a discussion of the future of CAC scoring, asking the central question: do we really need a new CAC score?

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)923-937
Number of pages15
JournalJACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
Volume10
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2017

Fingerprint

Coronary Vessels
Calcium

Keywords

  • cardiac CT
  • cardiovascular disease
  • coronary artery calcium
  • prediction
  • risk
  • score

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Blaha, M., Mortensen, M. B., Kianoush, S., Tota-Maharaj, R., & Cainzos-Achirica, M. (2017). Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring: Is It Time for a Change in Methodology? JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, 10(8), 923-937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.05.007

Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring : Is It Time for a Change in Methodology? / Blaha, Michael; Mortensen, Martin Bødtker; Kianoush, Sina; Tota-Maharaj, Rajesh; Cainzos-Achirica, Miguel.

In: JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, Vol. 10, No. 8, 01.08.2017, p. 923-937.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Blaha, M, Mortensen, MB, Kianoush, S, Tota-Maharaj, R & Cainzos-Achirica, M 2017, 'Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring: Is It Time for a Change in Methodology?', JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 923-937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.05.007
Blaha, Michael ; Mortensen, Martin Bødtker ; Kianoush, Sina ; Tota-Maharaj, Rajesh ; Cainzos-Achirica, Miguel. / Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring : Is It Time for a Change in Methodology?. In: JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2017 ; Vol. 10, No. 8. pp. 923-937.
@article{1e3fb818204d4826a58a0de6f7061c64,
title = "Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring: Is It Time for a Change in Methodology?",
abstract = "Quantification of coronary artery calcium (CAC) has been shown to be reliable, reproducible, and predictive of cardiovascular risk. Formal CAC scoring was introduced in 1990, with early scoring algorithms notable for their simplicity and elegance. Yet, with little evidence available on how to best build a score, and without a conceptual model guiding score development, these scores were, to a large degree, arbitrary. In this review, we describe the traditional approaches for clinical CAC scoring, noting their strengths, weaknesses, and limitations. We then discuss a conceptual model for developing an improved CAC score, reviewing the evidence supporting approaches most likely to lead to meaningful score improvement (for example, accounting for CAC density and regional distribution). After discussing the potential implementation of an improved score in clinical practice, we follow with a discussion of the future of CAC scoring, asking the central question: do we really need a new CAC score?",
keywords = "cardiac CT, cardiovascular disease, coronary artery calcium, prediction, risk, score",
author = "Michael Blaha and Mortensen, {Martin B{\o}dtker} and Sina Kianoush and Rajesh Tota-Maharaj and Miguel Cainzos-Achirica",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.05.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "923--937",
journal = "JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging",
issn = "1936-878X",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring

T2 - Is It Time for a Change in Methodology?

AU - Blaha, Michael

AU - Mortensen, Martin Bødtker

AU - Kianoush, Sina

AU - Tota-Maharaj, Rajesh

AU - Cainzos-Achirica, Miguel

PY - 2017/8/1

Y1 - 2017/8/1

N2 - Quantification of coronary artery calcium (CAC) has been shown to be reliable, reproducible, and predictive of cardiovascular risk. Formal CAC scoring was introduced in 1990, with early scoring algorithms notable for their simplicity and elegance. Yet, with little evidence available on how to best build a score, and without a conceptual model guiding score development, these scores were, to a large degree, arbitrary. In this review, we describe the traditional approaches for clinical CAC scoring, noting their strengths, weaknesses, and limitations. We then discuss a conceptual model for developing an improved CAC score, reviewing the evidence supporting approaches most likely to lead to meaningful score improvement (for example, accounting for CAC density and regional distribution). After discussing the potential implementation of an improved score in clinical practice, we follow with a discussion of the future of CAC scoring, asking the central question: do we really need a new CAC score?

AB - Quantification of coronary artery calcium (CAC) has been shown to be reliable, reproducible, and predictive of cardiovascular risk. Formal CAC scoring was introduced in 1990, with early scoring algorithms notable for their simplicity and elegance. Yet, with little evidence available on how to best build a score, and without a conceptual model guiding score development, these scores were, to a large degree, arbitrary. In this review, we describe the traditional approaches for clinical CAC scoring, noting their strengths, weaknesses, and limitations. We then discuss a conceptual model for developing an improved CAC score, reviewing the evidence supporting approaches most likely to lead to meaningful score improvement (for example, accounting for CAC density and regional distribution). After discussing the potential implementation of an improved score in clinical practice, we follow with a discussion of the future of CAC scoring, asking the central question: do we really need a new CAC score?

KW - cardiac CT

KW - cardiovascular disease

KW - coronary artery calcium

KW - prediction

KW - risk

KW - score

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026859106&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85026859106&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.05.007

DO - 10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.05.007

M3 - Review article

C2 - 28797416

AN - SCOPUS:85026859106

VL - 10

SP - 923

EP - 937

JO - JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging

JF - JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging

SN - 1936-878X

IS - 8

ER -