TY - JOUR
T1 - Validation of the Coronary Artery Calcium Data and Reporting System (CAC-DRS)
T2 - Dual importance of CAC score and CAC distribution from the Coronary Artery Calcium (CAC) consortium
AU - Dzaye, Omar
AU - Dudum, Ramzi
AU - Mirbolouk, Mohammadhassan
AU - Orimoloye, Olusola A.
AU - Osei, Albert D.
AU - Dardari, Zeina A.
AU - Berman, Daniel S.
AU - Miedema, Michael D.
AU - Shaw, Leslee
AU - Rozanski, Alan
AU - Holdhoff, Matthias
AU - Nasir, Khurram
AU - Rumberger, John A.
AU - Budoff, Matthew J.
AU - Al-Mallah, Mouaz H.
AU - Blankstein, Ron
AU - Blaha, Michael J.
N1 - Funding Information:
Dr. Blaha has received support from NIH/NHLBI L30 HL110027 for this project.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography
PY - 2020/1/1
Y1 - 2020/1/1
N2 - Background: The Coronary Artery Calcium Data and Reporting System (CAC-DRS), which takes into account the Agatston score category (A) and the number of calcified vessels (N) has not yet been validated in terms of its prognostic significance. Methods: We included 54,678 patients from the CAC Consortium, a large retrospective clinical cohort of asymptomatic individuals free of baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD). CAC-DRS groups were derived from routine, cardiac-gated CAC scans. Cox proportional hazards regression models, adjusted for traditional CVD risk factors, were used to assess the association between CAC-DRS groups and CHD, CVD, and all-cause mortality. CAC-DRS was then compared to CAC score groups and regional CAC distribution using area under the curve (AUC) analysis. Results: The study population had a mean age of 54.2 ± 10.7, 34.4% female, and mean ASCVD score 7.3% ± 9.0. Over a mean follow-up of 12 ± 4 years, a total of 2,469 deaths (including 398 CHD deaths and 762 CVD deaths) were recorded. There was a graded risk for CHD, CVD and all-cause mortality with increasing CAC-DRS groups ranging from an all-cause mortality rate of 1.2 per 1,000 person-years for A0 to 15.4 per 1,000 person-years for A3/N4. In multivariable-adjusted models, those with CAC-DRS A3/N4 had significantly higher risk for CHD mortality (HR 5.9 (95% CI 3.6–9.9), CVD mortality (HR4.0 (95% CI 2.8–5.7), and all-cause mortality a (HR 2.5 (95% CI 2.1–3.0) compared to CAC-DRS A0. CAC-DRS had higher AUC than CAC score groups (0.762 vs 0.754, P < 0.001) and CAC distribution (0.762 vs 0.748, P < 0.001). Conclusion: The CAC-DRS system, combining the Agatston score and the number of vessels with CAC provides better stratification of risk for CHD, CVD, and all-cause death than the Agatston score alone. These prognostic data strongly support new SCCT guidelines recommending the use CAC-DRS scoring.
AB - Background: The Coronary Artery Calcium Data and Reporting System (CAC-DRS), which takes into account the Agatston score category (A) and the number of calcified vessels (N) has not yet been validated in terms of its prognostic significance. Methods: We included 54,678 patients from the CAC Consortium, a large retrospective clinical cohort of asymptomatic individuals free of baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD). CAC-DRS groups were derived from routine, cardiac-gated CAC scans. Cox proportional hazards regression models, adjusted for traditional CVD risk factors, were used to assess the association between CAC-DRS groups and CHD, CVD, and all-cause mortality. CAC-DRS was then compared to CAC score groups and regional CAC distribution using area under the curve (AUC) analysis. Results: The study population had a mean age of 54.2 ± 10.7, 34.4% female, and mean ASCVD score 7.3% ± 9.0. Over a mean follow-up of 12 ± 4 years, a total of 2,469 deaths (including 398 CHD deaths and 762 CVD deaths) were recorded. There was a graded risk for CHD, CVD and all-cause mortality with increasing CAC-DRS groups ranging from an all-cause mortality rate of 1.2 per 1,000 person-years for A0 to 15.4 per 1,000 person-years for A3/N4. In multivariable-adjusted models, those with CAC-DRS A3/N4 had significantly higher risk for CHD mortality (HR 5.9 (95% CI 3.6–9.9), CVD mortality (HR4.0 (95% CI 2.8–5.7), and all-cause mortality a (HR 2.5 (95% CI 2.1–3.0) compared to CAC-DRS A0. CAC-DRS had higher AUC than CAC score groups (0.762 vs 0.754, P < 0.001) and CAC distribution (0.762 vs 0.748, P < 0.001). Conclusion: The CAC-DRS system, combining the Agatston score and the number of vessels with CAC provides better stratification of risk for CHD, CVD, and all-cause death than the Agatston score alone. These prognostic data strongly support new SCCT guidelines recommending the use CAC-DRS scoring.
KW - Computed tomography
KW - Coronary artery calcium
KW - Coronary artery calcium data and reporting system
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063637294&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85063637294&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcct.2019.03.011
DO - 10.1016/j.jcct.2019.03.011
M3 - Article
C2 - 30952612
AN - SCOPUS:85063637294
SN - 1934-5925
VL - 14
SP - 12
EP - 17
JO - Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography
JF - Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography
IS - 1
ER -