Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 108–112

Biomarkers and Assessment of Subclinical Atherosclerosis for the Prediction of Cardiovascular Disease: What is the Current Evidence?

Novel and Emerging Risk Factors (N Wong and C Lewis, Section Editors)
  • 135 Downloads

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States and Europe, with the majority being coronary deaths. The first presentation of cardiovascular disease, often in patients without significant traditional risk factors, is often myocardial infarction. Strategies utilizing biomarkers and assessment of subclinical atherosclerosis have been shown previously to correlate with cardiovascular disease. This article will review current evidence for these strategies, of which, measurement of coronary artery calcium has been shown to provide the greatest risk assessment, discrimination, and risk reclassification for coronary heart disease.

Keywords

Cardiovascular risk Framingham risk score Biomarkers Brain natriuretic peptide C-reactive protein Coronary artery calcium Carotid intima media thickness Genome-wide association 

References

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

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, Benjamin EJ, Berry JD, Borden WB, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2012 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;125(1):e2–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang TJ, Wollert KC, Larson MG, Coglianese E, McCabe EL, Cheng S, et al. Prognostic utility of novel biomarkers of cardiovascular stress: the framingham heart study. Circulation. 2012;126(13):1596–604.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nadir MA, Rekhraj S, Wei L, Lim TK, Davidson J, Macdonald TM, et al. Improving the primary prevention of cardiovascular events by using biomarkers to identify individuals with silent heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(11):960–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    •• Kavousi M, Elias-Smale S, Rutten JH, Leening MJ, Vliegenthart R, Verwoert GC, et al. Evaluation of newer risk markers for coronary heart disease risk classification: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(6):438–44. This study compared the risk prediction of biomarkers, CIMT and CAC to conventional risk factors. This study had CHD endpoints.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB, D'Agostino RB, Vasan RS. Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med. 2008;27(2):157–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    •• Rana JS, Gransar H, Wong ND, Shaw L, Pencina M, Nasir K, et al. Comparative value of coronary artery calcium and multiple blood biomarkers for prognostication of cardiovascular events. Am J Cardiol. 2012;109(10):1449–53. This study directly compared biomarkers, including a "multi-biomarker" score with CAC and their additive benefit to the FRS for risk prediction. This study had CVD endpoints.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    •• Yeboah J, McClelland RL, Polonsky TS, Burke GL, Sibley CT, O'Leary D, et al. Comparison of novel risk markers for improvement in cardiovascular risk assessment in intermediate-risk individuals. JAMA. 2012;308(8):788–95. This study directly compared the additive risk prediction of biomarkers, ABI, CIMT and CAC to conventional risk factors. This study had both CHD and CVD endpoints.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaptoge S, Di Angelantonio E, Pennells L, Wood AM, White IR, Gao P, et al. C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, and cardiovascular disease prediction. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(14):1310–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boekholdt SM, Arsenault BJ, Mora S, Pedersen TR, LaRosa JC, Nestel PJ, et al. Association of LDL cholesterol, Non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein b levels with risk of cardiovascular events among patients treated with statins a meta-analysis. JAMA-J Am Med Assoc. 2012;307(12):1302–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simprini LA, Villines TC, Rich M, Taylor AJ. The relationship between subclinical atherosclerosis, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, exercise, and diet among male participants of the PACC Project. J Clin Lipidol. 2012;6(2):174–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ehret GB, Munroe PB, Rice KM, Bochud M, Johnson AD, Chasman DI, et al. Genetic variants in novel pathways influence blood pressure and cardiovascular disease risk. Nature. 2011;478(7367):103–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taal HR, Verwoert GC, Demirkan A, Janssens AC, Rice K, Ehret G, et al. Genome-wide profiling of blood pressure in adults and children. Hypertension. 2012;59(2):241–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schunkert H, Konig IR, Kathiresan S, Reilly MP, Assimes TL, Holm H, et al. Large-scale association analysis identifies 13 new susceptibility loci for coronary artery disease. Nat Genet. 2011;43(4):333–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hernesniemi JA, Seppala I, Lyytikainen LP, Mononen N, Oksala N, Hutri-Kahonen N et al. Genetic profiling using genome-wide significant coronary artery disease risk variants does not improve the prediction of subclinical atherosclerosis: the cardiovascular risk in young finns study, the bogalusa heart study and the health 2000 survey - a meta-analysis of three independent studies. Plos One. 2012;7(1).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zeller T, Blankenberg S, Diemert P. Genomewide Association Studies in Cardiovascular Disease-An Update 2011. Clin Chem. 2012;58(1):92–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Den Ruijter HM, Peters SA, Anderson TJ, Britton AR, Dekker JM, Eijkemans MJ, et al. Common carotid intima-media thickness measurements in cardiovascular risk prediction: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2012;308(8):796–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lorenz MW, Polak JF, Kavousi M, Mathiesen EB, Volzke H, Tuomainen TP, et al. Carotid intima-media thickness progression to predict cardiovascular events in the general population (the PROG-IMT collaborative project): a meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet. 2012;379(9831):2053–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Taylor AJ, Fiorilli PN, Wu H, Bauer K, Bindeman J, Byrd C, et al. Relation between the Framingham Risk Score, coronary calcium, and incident coronary heart disease among low-risk men. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106(1):47–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lakoski SG, Greenland P, Wong ND, Schreiner PJ, Herrington DM, Kronmal RA, 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
  21. 21.
    Tota-Maharaj R, Blaha MJ, McEvoy JW, Blumenthal RS, Muse ED, Budoff MJ, et al. Coronary artery calcium for the prediction of mortality in young adults <45 years old and elderly adults >75 years old. Eur Heart J. 2012. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs230.
  22. 22.
    Detrano R, Guerci AD, Carr JJ, Bild DE, Burke G, Folsom AR, et al. Coronary calcium as a predictor of coronary events in four racial or ethnic groups. New Engl J Med. 2008;358(13):1336–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    • Rozanski A, Gransar H, Shaw LJ, Kim J, Miranda-Peats L, Wong ND, 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(15):1622–32. This study showed that CAC scanning is associated with improved downstream risk factor modicfication without significantly increasing downstream costs.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cedars-Sinai Heart InstituteCedars-Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Division of CardiologyNorthern California Kaiser PermanenteOaklandUSA

Personalised recommendations