doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.767665
(Circulation. 2008;117:1627-1629.)
© 2008 American Heart Association, Inc.
Editorial |
How Low-Risk Is a Coronary Calcium Score of Zero?
The Importance of Conditional Probability
From the Departments of Preventive Medicine (P.G.) and Medicine (P.G., R.O.B.), Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill.
Correspondence to Philip Greenland, MD, 750 N Lake Shore Dr, 9th Floor, Chicago, IL 60611.
Key Words: Editorials • coronary disease • imaging • prognosis
Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring by computed tomography (CT) has been the subject of intense interest and critical scrutiny since it was first reported as a clinical tool in 1990.1 With improvements in study design, greater availability of coronary CT scanners, and increased attention to the posttest prognosis of patient samples and asymptomatic individuals who have undergone coronary CT, CAC measurement is now considered a potentially useful test for improving coronary risk assessment in selected intermediate-risk asymptomatic patients in whom high CAC scores signify increased cardiovascular risk beyond that predicted by conventional cardiovascular risk factors alone.2
Article p 1693
At the other end of the spectrum, does a very low CAC score signify very low risk? An American Heart Association writing group3 stated that a CAC score of zero (CAC=0; ie, no calcified plaque detected) indicated 1) that the presence of atherosclerotic plaque, including unstable or vulnerable plaque, was highly unlikely; 2) that the presence of significant luminal obstructive disease was highly unlikely (negative predictive value on the order of 95% to 99%); and 3) that the risk of a cardiovascular event in the next 2 to 5 years was quite low (0.1 per 100 person-years). In addition, at least 1 early study suggested that CAC=0 might be useful in the emergency room setting as a tool to rule out myocardial ischemia in symptomatic patients.4 A recent review article5 suggested the same conclusions. However, as pointed out by a different writing group of the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology,2 prognostic studies of CAC scoring in symptomatic patients have been limited by biased samples (eg, patients referred for invasive coronary angiography who also underwent CAC testing), incomplete follow-up for posttest events, and small numbers of hard outcome events. Thus, in 2007, CT experts had reached no clear consensus on the role of CAC testing in symptomatic patients.2,4,5
The study by Schenker et al in the current issue of Circulation6 reports important new information on the role of coronary CT in symptomatic patients. The study included patients who were referred for evaluation of myocardial ischemia. All had rest-stress Rubidium-82 positron emission tomography perfusion imaging and CAC scoring performed on a hybrid positron emission tomography–CT scanner, and complete data including follow-up for clinical events were available in 606 patients. On the basis of clinical information,7 the authors estimated that patients described in this report had a mean likelihood of significant anatomic coronary artery disease of nearly 60%. Considering the mean age of 61 years and the high prevalence of both cardiopulmonary symptoms and cardiovascular risk factors, it is not surprising that the mean CAC score in the overall sample was high at 429±869 Agatston units. Of the 165 patients found to have myocardial ischemia by positron emission tomography scan, 34 had CAC=0, and of these, 4 had a cardiac event in the subsequent 1.4 years of follow-up (mean event rate 8.2 per 100 person-years). In 441 patients who were nonischemic by positron emission tomography scan, 179 had CAC=0, and of these, 7 had a subsequent cardiac event in the 1.4 years of follow-up (estimated event rate 2.6 per 100 person-years). Finally, in 213 patients in this study with CAC=0, inducible ischemia occurred in 16%.
Rates of inducible ischemia and subsequent cardiac events in the patients with CAC=0 in the study of Schenker et al6 far exceed those reported in all previous studies (see Table). The authors indicate why they believe that inducible ischemia in patients with CAC=0 in their experience is so much higher than in previous studies. For example, Schenker et al6 note that the study of Rozanski et al,8 which considered a patient group that was largely asymptomatic in a screening setting, reported an overall event rate of myocardial infarction or cardiac death among 1153 patients of 0.9 per 100 person-years. In the 252 patient subset with CAC=0, only 3 events occurred in the follow-up period, with annualized event rates of 0.47 per 100 person-years8; notably, the "events" included late revascularization. Schenker et al6 conclude that this marked difference in event rates in their study versus that of Rozanski et al8 is likely due to patient differences between the samples.
|
We agree with Schenker et al6 that the interpretation of a CAC test, as is the case with all other diagnostic tests in cardiology, must take into account the patient population, presence or absence of symptoms, and the clinical setting. In other words, the pretest probability of disease as well as the test result must be considered when interpreting the test result. The data of Schenker et al6 illustrate this point exquisitely in terms of the clinical meaning of a CAC=0 test result. As shown in the Table, in largely asymptomatic samples, event rates in patients with CAC=0 are generally low, ranging from 0.04 per 100 person-years in the lowest-risk populations to as high as 0.63 per 100 person-years in an older asymptomatic cohort that also required at least 1 risk factor for study inclusion.9 In striking contrast to all of the previous studies that included only asymptomatic patients, or a mix of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, the patients reported by Schenker et al6 were all physician-referred for provocative testing based on cardiac symptoms or other evidence of intermediate-to-high risk of anatomic coronary disease.7 Symptomatic or otherwise, the clinical scenarios warranted diagnostic information on inducible ischemia and not merely CAC testing. In these higher-risk patients, event rates were markedly higher for CAC=0 patients6 than in all prior reports (see Table).
The message of these findings is clear and bears emphasis here. When the pretest probability of coronary artery disease is low (eg, asymptomatic screening setting), a CAC score of zero is associated with low risk of coronary artery disease and low risk of near-term coronary events (see Table). In older asymptomatic patients with risk factors, CAC=0 is associated with a moderate increased risk of events.9 And in patients such as those reported by Schenker et al,6 with clinical signs and symptoms associated with an intermediate-to-high risk of coronary disease, CAC=0 is often associated with myocardial ischemia on provocative testing (16% in their patients) and with a high risk of near-term coronary events (nearly 9 times higher than previously reported for any asymptomatic cohort). It is appropriate to question the added value of the CAC score in this moderately high-risk patient group. Was the extra cost and extra radiation burden balanced by extra clinical value? Reverend Bayes20 is proven correct again, and once again we learn that a high pretest probability should alert us to the concern that a "negative test" does not "rule-out" disease as it does when pretest probability is low. The data of Schenker et al6 remind us of the importance of the clinical setting and the need to carefully assess the patient before ordering a test.
 |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Disclosures
Dr Greenland reports having served in the past 2 years as a consultant for GE/Toshiba and Pfizer. Dr Bonow reports no conflicts.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.
|
References |
|---|
 Top References |
|---|
1. Agatston AS, Janowitz WR, Hildner FJ, Zusmer NR, Viamonte M Jr, Detrano R. Quantification of coronary artery calcium using ultrafast computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990; 15: 827–832.[Abstract]
2. Greenland P, Bonow RO, Brundage BH, Budoff MJ, Eisenberg MJ, Grundy SM, Lauer MS, Post WS, Raggi P, Redberg RF, Rodgers GP, Shaw LJ, Taylor AJ, Weintraub WS. American College of Cardiology Foundation Clinical Expert Consensus Task Force (ACCF/AHA Writing Committee to Update the 2000 Expert Consensus Document on Electron Beam Computed Tomography); Society of Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention; Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. ACCF/AHA 2007 clinical expert consensus document on coronary artery calcium scoring by computed tomography in global cardiovascular risk assessment and in evaluation of patients with chest pain: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Clinical Expert Consensus Task Force (ACCF/AHA Writing Committee to Update the 2000 Expert Consensus Document on Electron-Beam Computed Tomography). Circulation. 2007; 115: 402–426.
3. Budoff MJ, Achenbach S, Blumenthal RS, Carr JJ, Goldin JG, Greenland P, Guerci AD, Lima JA, Rader DJ, Rubin GD, Shaw LJ, Wiegers SE; American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; American Heart Association Committee on Cardiac Imaging, Council on Clinical Cardiology. Assessment of coronary artery disease by cardiac computed tomography: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, and Committee on Cardiac Imaging, Council on Clinical Cardiology. Circulation. 2006; 114: 1761–1791.
4. Georgiou D, Budoff MJ, Kaufer E, Kennedy JM, Lu B, Brundage BH. Screening patients with chest pain in the emergency department using electron beam tomography: a follow-up study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38: 105–110.
5. Shareghi S, Ahmadi N, Young E, Gopal A, Liu ST, Budoff MJ. Prognostic significance of zero coronary calcium scores on cardiac computed tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomography. 2007; 1: 155–159.[CrossRef]
6. Schenker MP, Dorbala S, Hong ECT, Rybicki FJ, Hachamovitch R, Kwong RY, Di Carli MF. Relationship between coronary calcification, myocardial ischemia, and outcomes in patients with intermediate likelihood of coronary artery disease: a combined positron emission tomography/computed tomography study. Circulation. 2008: 117: 1693–1700.
7. Pryor DB, Shaw L, McCants CB, Lee KL, Mark DB, Harrell FE Jr, Muhlbaier LH, Califf RM. Value of the history and physical in identifying patients at increased risk for coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med. 1993; 118: 81–90.
8. Rozanski A, Gransar H, Wong ND, Shaw LJ, Miranda-Peats R, Polk D, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, Berman DS. Clinical outcomes after both coronary calcium scanning and exercise myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 49: 1352–1361.
9. Greenland P, LaBree L, Azen SP, Doherty TM, Detrano RC. Coronary artery calcium score combined with Framingham score for risk prediction in asymptomatic individuals. JAMA. 2004; 291: 210–215.
10. Keelan PC, Bielak LF, Ashai K, Jamjoum LS, Denktas AE, Rumberger JA, Sheedy PF II, Peyser PA, Schwartz RS. Long-term prognostic value of coronary calcification detected by electron-beam computed tomography in patients undergoing coronary angiography. Circulation. 2001; 104: 412–417.
11. Arad Y, Spadaro LA, Goodman K, Newstein D, Guerci AD. Prediction of coronary events with electron beam computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 36: 1253–1260.
12. Raggi P, Callister TQ, Cooil B, He ZX, Lippolis NJ, Russo DJ, Zelinger A, Mahmarian JJ. Identification of patients at increased risk of first unheralded acute myocardial infarction by electron-beam computed tomography. Circulation. 2000; 101: 850–855.
13. Wong ND, Hsu JC, Detrano RC, Diamond G, Eisenberg H, Gardin JM. Coronary artery calcium evaluation by electron beam computed tomography and its relation to new cardiovascular events. Am J Cardiol. 2000; 86: 495–498.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. 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.
15. Kondos GT, Hoff JA, Sevrukov A, Daviglus ML, Garside DB, Devries SS, Chomka EV, Liu K. Electron-beam tomography coronary artery calcium and cardiac events: a 37-month follow-up of 5635 initially asymptomatic low- to intermediate-risk adults. Circulation. 2003; 107: 2571–2576.
16. Anand DV, Lim E, Hopkins D, Corder R, Shaw LJ, Sharp P, Lipkin D, Lahiri A. Risk stratification in uncomplicated type 2 diabetes: prospective evaluation of the combined use of coronary artery calcium imaging and selective myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Eur Heart J. 2006; 27: 713–721.
17. Taylor AJ, Bindeman J, Feuerstein I, Cao F, Brazaitis M, O’Malley PG. Coronary calcium independently predicts incident premature coronary heart disease over measured cardiovascular risk factors: mean three-year outcomes in the Prospective Army Coronary Calcium (PACC) project. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 46: 807–814.
18. Church TS, Levine BD, McGuire DK, Lamonte MJ, Fitzgerald SJ, Cheng YJ, Kimball TE, Blair SN, Gibbons LW, Nichaman MZ. Coronary artery calcium score, risk factors, and incident coronary heart disease events. Atherosclerosis. 2007; 190: 224–231.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
19. Becker A, Leber A, Becker C, Knez A. Predictive value of coronary calcifications for future cardiac events in asymptomatic individuals. Am Heart J. 2008; 155: 154–160.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
20. Diamond GA, Forrester JS, Hirsch M, Staniloff HM, Vas R, Berman DS, Swan HJ. Application of conditional probability analysis to the clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease. J Clin Invest. 1980; 65: 1210–1221.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  R. O. Bonow Should Coronary Calcium Screening Be Used in Cardiovascular Prevention Strategies? N. Engl. J. Med., September 3, 2009; 361(10): 990 - 997. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Blaha, M. J. Budoff, L. J. Shaw, F. Khosa, J. A. Rumberger, D. Berman, T. Callister, P. Raggi, R. S. Blumenthal, and K. Nasir Absence of Coronary Artery Calcification and All-Cause Mortality J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img., June 1, 2009; 2(6): 692 - 700. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. D. Horne, J. F. Carlquist, J. B. Muhlestein, T. L. Bair, and J. L. Anderson Association of Variation in the Chromosome 9p21 Locus With Myocardial Infarction Versus Chronic Coronary Artery Disease Circ Cardiovasc Genet, December 1, 2008; 1(2): 85 - 92. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||