Cited by 141Cardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health

Prevalence and Prognostic Implications of Coronary Artery Calcification in Low-Risk Women: A Meta-analysis

Open access
Kavousi, Maryam, Desai, Chintan S., Ayers, Colby, Blumenthal, Roger S., Budoff, Matthew J., Mahabadi, Amir-Abbas, Ikram, M. Arfan, van der Lugt, Aad +14 more·2016·JAMA

Abstract

Importance: The role of coronary artery calcium (CAC) testing for guiding preventive strategies among women at low cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk based on the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association CVD prevention guidelines is unclear. Objective: To assess the potential utility of CAC testing for CVD risk estimation and stratification among low-risk women. Design, Setting, and Participants: Women with 10-year atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) risk lower than 7.5% from 5 large population-based cohorts: the Dallas Heart Study (United States), the Framingham Heart Study (United States), the Heinz Nixdorf Recall study (Germany), the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (United States), and the Rotterdam Study (the Netherlands). The 5 cohorts were selected based on the availability of CAC data in a sizable group of low-risk women from the general population together with the long detailed follow-up data. Across the cohorts, events were assessed from the date of CAC scan (performed from 1998 through 2006) until January 1, 2012; January 1, 2014; or March 6, 2015. Fixed-effects meta-analysis was conducted to combine the results of the 5 studies. Exposures: CAC score by computed tomography. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcome was incident ASCVD, including nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease (CHD) death, and stroke. Association of CAC with ASCVD was examined using Cox proportional hazards models. To assess whether CAC was associated with improved ASCVD risk predictions beyond the traditional risk factors, the C statistic and the continuous net reclassification improvement (cNRI) index were calculated. Results: Among 6739 women with low ASCVD risk from the 5 studies, mean age ranged from 44 to 63 years and CAC was present in 36.1%. Across the cohorts, median follow-up ranged from 7.0 to 11.6 years. A total of 165 ASCVD events occurred (64 nonfatal myocardial infarctions, 29 CHD deaths, and 72 strokes), with the ASCVD incidence rates ranging from 1.5 to 6.0 per 1000 person-years. Compared with the absence of CAC (CAC = 0), presence of CAC (CAC >0) was associated with an increased risk of ASCVD (incidence rates per 1000 person-years, 1.41 for CAC absence vs 4.33 for CAC presence; difference, 2.92 [95% CI, 2.02-3.83]; multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio, 2.04 [95% CI, 1.44-2.90]). The addition of CAC to traditional risk factors improved the C statistic from 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.77) to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) and provided a cNRI of 0.20 (95% CI, 0.09-0.31) for ASCVD prediction. Conclusions and Relevance: Among women at low ASCVD risk, CAC was present in approximately one-third and was associated with an increased risk of ASCVD and modest improvement in prognostic accuracy compared with traditional risk factors. Further research is needed to assess the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of this additional accuracy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2016.17020

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Using imaging to determine atherosclerotic vascular damage in low-risk individuals not being considered for statin therapy is not justified because of low prognostic yield, costs, and radiation hazards, particularly in low-risk women.

    “The use of imaging techniques to determine the presence and extent of atherosclerotic vascular damage in low-risk individuals not being considered for statin therapy is not justified due to low prognostic yield, and the associated costs and radiation hazards when measuring CAC score, particularly among low-risk women [29].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kavousi, M., Desai, C. S., Ayers, C., Blumenthal, R. S., Budoff, M. J., Mahabadi, A.-A., Ikram, M. A., van der Lugt, A., Hofman, A., Erbel, R., Khera, A., Geisel, M. H., Jöckel, K.-H., Lehmann, N., Hoffmann, U., O’Donnell, C. J., Massaro, J. M., Liu, K., Möhlenkamp, S., Ning, H., Franco, O. H., & Greenland, P.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • West German Heart and Vascular Center Essen (DE)
  • Department of Radiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
  • Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands8Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
  • University of Duisburg-Essen (DE)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Bethanien Krankenhaus Moers (DE)
Corresponding author
Kavousi, Maryam
Venue
JAMA
Published
2016-11-22
Volume
316
Issue
20
Pages
2126
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2549490050
Cited by
141
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (n01hc25195-41-0-1, 5r01hl080124-05, UL1TR000040)
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG028321)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01-HL080124, N01-HC-025195, R01HL077447, R01HL107385, R01HL076784, R01HL070100, R01HL060040, R01HL071039)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Keywords
coronary artery calcification, coronary artery calcium score, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular risk stratification, cardiovascular risk prediction, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary heart disease mortality, net reclassification improvement, concordance index, cardiovascular disease prevention, women's cardiovascular health, coronary risk factors, coronary artery disease
MeSH terms
Adult, Calcinosis, Calcium, Coronary Artery Disease, Coronary Vessels, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Cardiomyopathies, Netherlands, Prognosis, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, United States, Cohort Studies, Prevalence, Proportional Hazards Models, Risk Assessment, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review