Greenland Philip, LaBree Laurie, Azen Stanley P, Doherty Terence M, Detrano Robert C
Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill 90502, USA.
JAMA. 2004 Jan 14;291(2):210-5. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.2.210.
Guidelines advise that all adults undergo coronary heart disease (CHD) risk assessment to guide preventive treatment intensity. Although the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) is often recommended for this, it has been suggested that risk assessment may be improved by additional tests such as coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS).
To determine whether CACS assessment combined with FRS in asymptomatic adults provides prognostic information superior to either method alone and whether the combined approach can more accurately guide primary preventive strategies in patients with CHD risk factors.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective observational population-based study, of 1461 asymptomatic adults with coronary risk factors. Participants with at least 1 coronary risk factor (>45 years) underwent computed tomography (CT) examination, were screened between 1990-1992, were contacted yearly for up to 8.5 years after CT scan, and were assessed for CHD. This analysis included 1312 participants with CACS results; excluded were 269 participants with diabetes and 14 participants with either missing data or had a coronary event before CACS was performed.
Nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or CHD death.
During a median of 7.0 years of follow-up, 84 patients experienced MI or CHD death; 70 patients died of any cause. There were 291 (28%) participants with an FRS of more than 20% and 221 (21%) with a CACS of more than 300. Compared with an FRS of less than 10%, an FRS of more than 20% predicted the risk of MI or CHD death (hazard ratio [HR], 14.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]; 2.0-104; P =.009). Compared with a CACS of zero, a CACS of more than 300 was predictive (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.1-7.3; P<.001). Across categories of FRS, CACS was predictive of risk among patients with an FRS higher than 10% (P<.001) but not with an FRS less than 10%.
These data support the hypothesis that high CACS can modify predicted risk obtained from FRS alone, especially among patients in the intermediate-risk category in whom clinical decision making is most uncertain.
指南建议所有成年人都应接受冠心病(CHD)风险评估,以指导预防性治疗的强度。尽管通常推荐使用弗明汉风险评分(FRS)进行此项评估,但也有人提出,通过冠状动脉钙化评分(CACS)等额外检测可能会改善风险评估。
确定在无症状成年人中,CACS评估与FRS相结合是否能提供优于单独使用任何一种方法的预后信息,以及这种联合方法是否能更准确地指导有冠心病风险因素患者的一级预防策略。
设计、地点和参与者:基于人群的前瞻性观察性研究,纳入1461名有冠心病风险因素的无症状成年人。至少有1个冠心病风险因素(年龄>45岁)的参与者接受了计算机断层扫描(CT)检查,于1990 - 1992年进行筛查,在CT扫描后长达8.5年的时间里每年进行随访,并评估是否患有冠心病。该分析纳入了1312名有CACS结果的参与者;排除了269名糖尿病患者以及14名数据缺失或在进行CACS之前发生过冠心病事件的参与者。
非致命性心肌梗死(MI)或冠心病死亡。
在中位7.0年的随访期间,84例患者发生MI或冠心病死亡;70例患者死于任何原因。FRS超过20%的参与者有291例(28%),CACS超过300的参与者有221例(21%)。与FRS低于10%相比,FRS超过20%可预测MI或冠心病死亡风险(风险比[HR],14.3;95%置信区间[CI]:2.0 - 104;P = 0.009)。与CACS为零相比,CACS超过300具有预测性(HR,3.9;CI,2.1 - 7.3;P<0.001)。在FRS的各个类别中,CACS可预测FRS高于10%的患者的风险(P<0.001),但对于FRS低于10%的患者则不然。
这些数据支持以下假设,即高CACS可改变仅从FRS获得的预测风险,尤其是在临床决策最不确定的中风险类别患者中。