Cited by 461Cardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases

Prevalence, Impact, and Predictive Value of Detecting Subclinical Coronary and Carotid Atherosclerosis in Asymptomatic Adults

Open access
Baber, Usman, Mehran, Roxana, Sartori, Samantha, Schoos, Mikkel Malby, Sillesen, Henrik, Muntendam, Pieter, Garcia, Mario J., Gregson, John +3 more·2015·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

Background Although recent studies suggest that measuring coronary artery calcification (CAC) may be superior to indirect atherosclerotic markers in predicting cardiac risk, there are limited data evaluating imaging-based biomarkers that directly quantify atherosclerosis in different vascular beds performed in a single cohort.Objectives The BioImage Study (A Clinical Study of Burden of Atherosclerotic Disease in an At-Risk Population) sought to identify imaging biomarkers that predict near-term (3-year) atherothrombotic events.Methods The BioImage Study enrolled 5,808 asymptomatic U.S. adults (mean age: 69 years, 56.5% female) in a prospective cohort evaluating the role of vascular imaging on cardiovascular risk prediction. All patients were evaluated by CAC and novel 3-dimensional carotid ultrasound. Plaque areas from both carotid arteries were summed as the carotid plaque burden (cPB). The primary endpoint was the composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke). A broader secondary MACE endpoint also included all-cause death, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization.Results Over a median follow-up of 2.7 years, MACE occurred in 216 patients (4.2%), of which 82 (1.5%) were primary events. After adjustment for risk factors, and compared with individuals without any cPB, hazard ratios for MACE were 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31 to 1.91), 1.45 (95% CI: 0.67 to 3.14), and 2.36 (95% CI: 1.13 to 4.92) with increasing cPB tertile, with similar results for CAC. Net reclassification significantly improved with either cPB (0.23) or CAC (0.25). MACE rates increased simultaneously with higher levels of both cPB and CAC.Conclusions Detection of subclinical carotid or coronary atherosclerosis improves risk predictions and reclassification compared with conventional risk factors, with comparable results for either modality. Cost-effective analyses are warranted to define the optimal roles of these complementary techniques. (BioImage Study: A Clinical Study of Burden of Atherosclerotic Disease in an At-Risk Population; NCT00738725).

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 · 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.01.017

Cites

46 of 46 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Spence JD, Eliasziw M, DiCicco M, et al. Ca- rotid plaque area: a tool for targeting and evalu- ating vascular preventive therapy. Stroke 2002; 33:2916-22.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baber, U., Mehran, R., Sartori, S., Schoos, M. M., Sillesen, H., Muntendam, P., Garcia, M. J., Gregson, J., Pocock, S., Falk, E., & Fuster, V.
Affiliations
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
  • scPharmaceuticals (United States) (US)
  • Montefiore Medical Center (US)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Aarhus University Hospital (DK)
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
65
Issue
11
Pages
1065-1074
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1904745228
Cited by
461
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 17
FWCI
38.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Keywords
subclinical atherosclerosis, coronary artery calcification, carotid plaque burden, major adverse cardiac events, cardiovascular risk prediction, imaging biomarkers, asymptomatic adults, net reclassification improvement, atherothrombotic events, cost-effectiveness, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Carotid Artery Diseases, Coronary Artery Disease, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Prevalence, Risk Assessment, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Asymptomatic Diseases, Carotid Intima-Media Thickness, Vascular Calcification

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