Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Circulation. 2006;114:e82
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.617829
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schmermund, A.
Right arrow Articles by Erbel, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schmermund, A.
Right arrow Articles by Erbel, R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Cardiovascular Pharmacology
Right arrow CT and MRI
Right arrow Risk Factors
Right arrow Imaging
Right arrow Computerized tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging

(Circulation. 2006;114:e82.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.


Correspondence

Letter by Schmermund and Erbel Regarding Article, "Coronary Artery Calcium: Should We Rely on This Surrogate Marker?"

Axel Schmermund, MD

Cardioangiologisches Centrum Bethanien, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Raimund Erbel, MD

Department of Cardiology, West-German Heart Center Essen, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

To the Editor:

We read with interest the editorial by Dr Redberg1 published with our article on the progression of coronary artery calcification (CAC) in patients treated with 10 or 80 mg atorvastatin.2 We respectfully disagree, however, with Dr Redberg’s suggestion that "as of now, the weight of the evidence suggests that CAC scores are not reliable predictors of cardiac events" (p 337). A number of lines of evidence support a link between CAC and cardiovascular events. First, CAC closely relates to extent of coronary atherosclerosis, which is a well-established predictor of cardiovascular risk.3 The association between CAC and the extent of atherosclerosis holds true whether severity is expressed as maximum stenosis severity, number of significant stenoses, or number of significant and nonsignificant stenoses (<50%) in the coronary tree. Second, recent studies in unselected populations with no suggestion of selection bias consistently report that CAC quantification adds prognostic information over and above cardiovascular risk factors assessed with up-to-date methodology.4,5 Finally, emerging data suggest that an increased rate of CAC progression is associated with a significantly increased rate of cardiovascular hard events.4

We need to differentiate between (1) the well-documented ability of CAC scanning to identify high-risk patients, and (2) the question of whether serial CAC scanning is a good tool for tracking the progression of coronary atherosclerosis over 12 months to document the effects of a specific therapy. The "negative" finding in our study2 needs to be interpreted with the knowledge that in both randomized treatment groups, effective lipid-lowering therapy was given. Intensive statin therapy can reduce cardiovascular events (vascular risk). The process of vascular calcification (vascular aging) is, however, not attenuated. The mineralization process may be influenced in a different manner than the overall activity of atherosclerotic disease once appropriate treatment has been initiated. We believe the current findings should stimulate further research into the mechanisms of CAC progression and into new treatment opportunities to stop or attenuate this process. Clearly, with the advent and widespread use of multidetector computed tomography scanners, such research will be increasingly important.6 Fortunately, large epidemiological studies are underway in the United States (the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) and Germany (the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study) that will provide important data in this respect.


*    Acknowledgments
 
Sources of Funding

Drs Erbel and Schmermund have received research grants or other research support from Pfizer Germany.

Disclosures

Drs Erbel and Schmermund have received speakers’ honoraria from Pfizer Germany.


*    References
up arrowTop
*References
 

  1. Redberg RF. Coronary artery calcium: should we rely on this surrogate marker? Circulation. 2006; 113: 427–437.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Schmermund A, Achenbach S, Budde T, Buziashvili Y, Forster A, Friedrich G, Henein M, Kerkhoff G, Knollmann F, Kukharchuk V, Lahiri A, Leischik R, Moshage W, Schartl M, Siffert W, Steinhagen-Thiessen E, Sinitsyn V, Vogt A, Wiedeking B, Erbel R. Effect of intensive versus standard lipid-lowering treatment with atorvastatin on the progression of calcified coronary atherosclerosis over 12 months: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial. Circulation. 2006; 113: 336–337.[Free Full Text]
  3. Schmermund A, Möhlenkamp S, Erbel R. Coronary artery calcium and its relationship with coronary artery disease. Cardiol Clin. 2003; 21: 521–534.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Arad Y, Goodman KJ, Roth M, Newstein D, Guerci AD. Coronary calcification, coronary disease risk factors, C-reactive protein, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events: the St Francis Heart Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 46: 158–165.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Vliegenthart R, Oudkerk M, Hofman A, Oei HH, van Dijck W, van Rooij FJ, Witteman JC. Coronary calcification improves cardiovascular risk prediction in the elderly. Circulation. 2005; 112: 572–577.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Schmermund A, Erbel R, Silber S. Age and gender distribution of coronary artery calcium measured by four-slice computed tomography in 2,030 persons with no symptoms of coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 2002; 90: 168–173[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
A. Rutten, I. Isgum, and M. Prokop
Coronary Calcification: Effect of Small Variation of Scan Starting Position on Agatston, Volume, and Mass Scores
Radiology, December 1, 2007; 246(1): 90 - 98.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schmermund, A.
Right arrow Articles by Erbel, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schmermund, A.
Right arrow Articles by Erbel, R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Cardiovascular Pharmacology
Right arrow CT and MRI
Right arrow Risk Factors
Right arrow Imaging
Right arrow Computerized tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging