4.6 Article

Prevalence and Predictors of Atherosclerosis in Symptomatic Patients with Zero Calcium Score

Journal

ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 11, Pages 1437-1441

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.07.012

Keywords

Coronary angiography; coronary artery calcification; coronary computed tomography; noncalcified plaques

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rationale and Objectives: Absence of coronary artery calcium (CAC) in symptomatic patients is associated with a very low risk of adverse cardiovascular events. However, patients with zero CAC may have noncalcified plaques (NCP). In this analysis, we sought to determine the prevalence and predictors of NCP in symptomatic patients with zero CAC. Materials and Methods: Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) was performed in 333 consecutive symptomatic patients (mean age 50 +/- 12, 65% males) with zero CAC and no known coronary artery disease (CAD). Pretest likelihood was estimated by Framingham risk score (FRS). Independent predictors of NCP were identified using multivariate logistic regression. Results: NCP was detected in 55 patients (17%) on CCTA, of which 6 patients (1.8%) had significant stenosis. In univariate analysis, patients with NCP were older (55 +/- 7 vs. 50 +/- 10 years, P = .009), with higher prevalence of hypertension (80% vs. 63%, P = .013). Using multivariate logistic regression, the independent predictors of NCP in this cohort were intermediate to high FRS (OR 2.3, 95%CI 1.3-4.1, P = .007), whereas baseline statin therapy was associated with lower prevalence of NCP (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.17-0.89, P = .02). Conclusion: Our analysis shows that nearly one in five patients with zero calcium score has NCP and one in three patients with zero calcium score and intermediate to high FRS have evidence of NCP on CCTA. The prognostic value of NCP in these patients needs further evaluation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available