Current Cardiology Reports

, 13:465 | Cite as

Coronary Artery Calcium: Utilization for Primary Prevention of CHD

  • Harvey S. HechtEmail author


The rapidly accumulating data supporting coronary artery calcium (CAC) has necessitated multiple paradigm shifts in primary prevention: 1) CAC is the most powerful predictor of cardiac risk in the asymptomatic primary prevention population. 2) The most important role of risk factors may be to identify the modifiable targets of risk reduction in patients with risk already established by CAC. 3) “Normal cholesterol” values derived from population-based studies are not relevant for individual patients. 4) Measures of subclinical atherosclerosis (ie, serial CAC), rather than lipid values, define residual risk just as they define pretreatment risk. 5) Randomized controlled trials are not a prerequisite for implementation of CAC screening. 6) Trials evaluating lipid-treating drugs should exclude patients with 0 CAC. 7) CAC is the most cost-effective primary prevention approach.


Coronary artery calcium Coronary artery disease Primary prevention 



Conflicts of interest: H.S. Hecht: has been a consultant for Philips Medical Systems.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Arad Y, Spadaro LA, Goodman K, et al. Prediction of coronary events with electron beam computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1253–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Park R, Robert Detrano R, Xiang M, et al. Combined use of computed tomography coronary calcium scores and C-reactive protein levels in predicting cardiovascular events in nondiabetic individuals. Circulation. 2002;106:2073–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Raggi P, Callister TQ, Cooil B, et al. Identification of patients at increased risk of first unheralded acute myocardial infarction by electron beam computed tomography. Circulation. 2000;101:850–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wong ND, Hsu JC, Detrano RC, et al. Coronary artery calcium evaluation by electron beam compute tomography and its relation to new cardiovascular events. Am J Cardiol. 2000;86:495–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kondos GT, Hoff JA, Sevrukov A, et al. Electron-beam tomography coronary artery calcium and cardiac events: a 37-month follow-up of 5,635 initially asymptomatic low to intermediate risk adults. Circulation. 2003;107:2571–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greenland P, LaBree L, Azen SP, et al. Coronary artery calcium score combined with Framingham score for risk prediction in asymptomatic individuals. JAMA. 2004;291:10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shaw LJ, Raggi P, Schisterman E, et al. Prognostic value of cardiac risk factors and coronary artery calcium screening for all-cause mortality. Radiology. 2003;28:826–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arad Y, Goodman KJ, Roth M, et al. Coronary calcification, coronary risk factors, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events. The St Francis Heart Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(1):158–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taylor AJ, Bindeman J, Feuerstein I, et al. Coronary calcium independently predicts incident premature coronary heart disease over measured cardiovascular risk factors mean three-year outcomes in the prospective army C\coronary C\calcium (PACC) project. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:807–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vliegenthart R, Oudkerk M, Song B, et al. Coronary calcification detected by electron-beam computed tomography and myocardial infarction. The Rotterdam Coronary Calcification Study. Eur Heart J. 2002;23:1596–603.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Budoff MJ, Shaw LJ, Liu ST, et al. Long-term prognosis associated with coronary calcification. Observations from a registry of 25, 253 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:1860–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lakoski SG, Greenland P, Wong ND, et al. Coronary artery calcium scores and risk for cardiovascular events in women classified as “Low Risk” based on Framingham risk score. The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(22):2437–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Becker A, Leber A, Becker C, Knez A. Predictive value of coronary calcifications for future cardiac events in asymptomatic individuals. Am Heart J. 2008;155:154–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    • Detrano R,Guerci AD, Carr JJ, et al. Coronary calcium as a predictor of coronary events in four racial or ethnic groups. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1336–45. The most important proof of the superiority of CAC to risk factors for risk assessment, in a prospective NHLBI-sponsored study.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Erbel R, Möhlenkamp S, Moebus S, et al. Coronary risk stratification, discrimination, and reclassification improvement based on quantification of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis. The Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:1397–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taylor AJ, Fiorillia PN, Hongyan W, et al. Relation between the Framingham Risk Score, coronary calcium, and incident coronary heart disease among low-risk men. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106:47–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Blaha M, Budoff MJ, Shaw LJ, et al. Absence of coronary artery calcification and all-cause mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2009;2:692–700.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sarwar A, Shaw LJ, Shapiro MD, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic value of absence of coronary artery calcification. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2009;2:675–88.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elias-Smale SE, Proença RV, Koller MT, et al. Coronary calcium score improves classification of coronary heart disease risk in the elderly: The Rotterdam Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:1407–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    • Naghavi M, Falk E, Hecht HS, et al. From Vulnerable Plaque to Vulnerable Patient—Part III: Executive Summary of the Screening for Heart Attack Prevention and Education (SHAPE) Task Force Report. Am J Cardiol 2006;98[suppl]:2H–15H. This first guideline to incorporate CAC screening in the asymptomatic population was initially criticized but has gained widespread acceptance.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bill would require heart-screening reimbursement. Houston Business Journal. February 14, 2007. Available at
  22. 22.
    Texas bill, based on SHAPE paradigm, would require insurance coverage for calcium screening and carotid ultrasound. HeartWire. February 16, 2007.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kassirer J. Op-ED Boston Globe February 8, 2008.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    • Greenland P, Alpert JS, Beller GA, et al. 2010 ACCF/AHA Guideline for assessment of cardiovascular risk in adults. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56:e50–103. The first strong endorsement of CAC screening in the intermediate-risk population from the major cardiology societies.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Taylor AJ, Cerqueira M, Hodgson JM, ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCMR 2010, et al. Appropriate use criteria for cardiac computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:1864–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Malik S, Budoff M, Katz R, et al. Utility of coronary artery calcium in identifying whether metabolic syndrome and diabetes are coronary heart disease risk equivalents. Circulation. 2009;120:S547.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Raggi P, Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Callister TQ. Prognostic value of coronary artery calcium screening in subjects with and without diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:1663–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bulagahapatiya U, Siyambalapitiya J, Sithole J, Idri I. Is diabetes a coronary risk equivalent? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Med. 2009;26:143–8.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hecht HS. Risk factors revisited. Am J Cardiol. 2003;93:73–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hecht HS. “Interventional lipidology”: tomographic plaque imaging and aggressive treatment of metabolic disorders. Am J Cardiol. 2002;90:268–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Grundy SM. Is lowering low-density lipoprotein an effective strategy to reduce cardiac risk? Promise of low-density lipoprotein–lowering therapy for primary and secondary prevention. Circulation. 2008;117:569–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    O’Malley PG, Feuerstein IM, Taylor AJ. Impact of electron beam tomography, with or without case management, on motivation, behavioral change, and cardiovascular risk profile: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;289:2215–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kalia NK, Miller LG, Nasir K, Blumenthal RS, et al. Visualizing coronary calcium is associated with improvements in adherence to statin therapy. Atherosclerosis. 2006;185:394–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Orakzai RH, Nasir K, Orakzai SH, et al. Effect of patient visualization of coronary calcium by electron beam computed tomography on changes in beneficial lifestyle behaviors. Am J Cardiol. 2008;101:999–1002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schmermund A, Baumgart A, Taylor AJ, et al. Community-based provision of statin and aspirin after the detection of coronary artery calcium within a community-based screening cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:1337–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rozanski A, Gransar H, Shaw LJ, et al. Impact of coronary artery calcium scanning on coronary risk factors and downstream testing: The EISNER (Early Identification of Subclinical Atherosclerosis by Noninvasive Imaging Research) prospective randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:1622–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    • Hecht HS. The Role of coronary artery calcium in redefining normal and abnormal cholesterol values and residual risk, and absolute risk and risk reduction in primary prevention statin trials. Current Atherosclerosis Reports. 2011: In Press. A discussion of the paradigm changes created by CAC, including new definitions of normal lipid values and residual risk.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20 536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360:7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Friedewald VE, Ballantyne CM, Davidson MH, et al. The Editor’s roundtable: lipid management beyond statins—reducing residual cardiovascular risk. Am J Cardiol. 2008;102:559–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Carey VJ, Bishop L, Laranjo N, et al. Contribution of high plasma triglycerides and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol to residual risk of coronary heart disease after establishment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106:757–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Roberts WC. It’s the cholesterol, stupid. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106:1364–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Raggi P, Davidson M, Callister TQ, et al. Aggressive versus moderate lipid-lowering therapy in hypercholesterolemic post-menopausal women: beyond endorsed lipid lowering with EBT scanning (BELLES). Circulation. 2005;112:563–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Arad Y, Spadaro LA, Roth M, et al. Treatment of asymptomatic adults with elevated coronary calcium scores with atorvastatin, vitamin C, and vitamin E. The St. Francis Heart Study randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:166–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schmermund A, Achenbach S, Budde T, et al. 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;113:427–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Raggi P, Cooil B, Shaw LJ, et al. Progression of coronary calcium on serial electron beam tomographic scanning Is greater in patients with future myocardial infarction. Amer J Cardiol. 2003;92:827–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Raggi P, Callister TQ, Shaw LJ. Progression of coronary artery calcium and risk of first myocardial infarction in patients receiving cholesterol-lowering therapy. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2004;24:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Budoff MJ, Hokanson JE, Nasir K, et al. Progression of coronary artery calcium predicts all-cause mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2010;3:1229–36.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian SimvastatinSurvival Study (4S). Lancet. 1994;344:1383–9.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sacks FM, Moyé LA, Davis BR, et al. Relationship between plasma LDL concentrations during treatment with pravastatin and recurrent coronary events in the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events Trial. Circulation. 1998;97:1446–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    The Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) study group. Prevention of cardiovascular events and death with pravastatin in patients with coronary heart disease and a broad range of initial cholesterol levels. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1349–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FAH, for the JUPITER Study Group, et al. Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2195–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hecht HS, Naghavi M. Cardiovascular residual risk assessment in patients undergoing therapy: a combined structural and functional approach. Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports. 2009;2:405–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hecht HS. The deadly double standard: the saga of screening for subclinical atherosclerosis. Amer J Cardiol. 2008;101:1085–7.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    John R, Downs JR, Michael Clearfield M, Weis S, et al. Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels: Results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS. JAMA. 1998;279(20):1615–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Nakamura H, Arakawa K, Itakura H, for the MEGA Study Group, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with pravastatin in Japan (MEGA Study): a prospective randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;368:1155–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Diamond GA, Kaul S. The things to come of SHAPE: cost and effectiveness of cardiovascular prevention. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:1013–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mosca L, Benjamin EJ, Berra K. et al Effectiveness-based guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in women—2011 update: a guideline from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123:00–0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lenox Hill Heart and Vascular InstituteNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations