Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Validation of the Coronary Artery Calcium Data and Reporting System (CAC-DRS): Dual importance of CAC score and CAC distribution from the Coronary Artery Calcium (CAC) consortium

  • Omar Dzaye
  • , Ramzi Dudum
  • , Mohammadhassan Mirbolouk
  • , Olusola A. Orimoloye
  • , Albert D. Osei
  • , Zeina A. Dardari
  • , Daniel S. Berman
  • , Michael D. Miedema
  • , Leslee Shaw
  • , Alan Rozanski
  • , Matthias Holdhoff
  • , Khurram Nasir
  • , John A. Rumberger
  • , Matthew J. Budoff
  • , Mouaz H. Al-Mallah
  • , Ron Blankstein
  • , Michael J. Blaha

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)12-17
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of cardiovascular computed tomography
Volume14
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2020

Keywords

  • Computed tomography
  • Coronary artery calcium
  • Coronary artery calcium data and reporting system

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Validation of the Coronary Artery Calcium Data and Reporting System (CAC-DRS): Dual importance of CAC score and CAC distribution from the Coronary Artery Calcium (CAC) consortium'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this