钙评分何时等同于二级预防?来自多国CONFIRM注册研究的见解。

When Does a Calcium Score Equate to Secondary Prevention?: Insights From the Multinational CONFIRM Registry.

作者信息

Budoff Matthew J, Kinninger April, Gransar Heidi, Achenbach Stephan, Al-Mallah Mouaz, Bax Jeroen J, Berman Daniel S, Cademartiri Filippo, Callister Tracy Q, Chang Hyuk-Jae, Chow Benjamin J W, Cury Ricardo C, Feuchtner Gudrun, Hadamitzky Martin, Hausleiter Joerg, Kaufmann Philipp A, Leipsic Jonathon, Lin Fay Y, Kim Yong-Jin, Marques Hugo, Pontone Gianluca, Rubinshtein Ronen, Shaw Leslee J, Villines Todd C, Min James K

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Lundquist Institute at Harbor-University of California, Los Angeles, Torrance, California, USA; Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.

Department of Medicine, Lundquist Institute at Harbor-University of California, Los Angeles, Torrance, California, USA.

出版信息

JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2023 Sep;16(9):1181-1189. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2023.03.008. Epub 2023 May 24.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Elevated coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores in subjects without prior atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) have been shown to be associated with increased cardiovascular risk.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to determine at what level individuals with elevated CAC scores who have not had an ASCVD event should be treated as aggressively for cardiovascular risk factors as patients who have already survived an ASCVD event.

METHODS

The authors performed a cohort study comparing event rates of patients with established ASVCD to event rates in persons with no history of ASCVD and known calcium scores to ascertain at what level elevated CAC scores equate to risk associated with existing ASCVD. In the multinational CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter) registry, the authors compared ASCVD event rates in persons without a history of myocardial infarction (MI) or revascularization (as categorized on CAC scores) to event rates in those with established ASCVD. They identified 4,511 individuals without known coronary artery disease (CAC) who were compared to 438 individuals with established ASCVD. CAC was categorized as 0, 1 to 100, 101 to 300, and >300. Cumulative major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), MACE plus late revascularization, MI, and all-cause mortality incidence was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method for persons with no ASCVD history by CAC level and persons with established ASCVD. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to calculate HRs with 95% CIs, which were adjusted for traditional cardiovascular risk factors.

RESULTS

The mean age was 57.6 ± 12.4 years (56% male). In total, 442 of 4,949 (9%) patients experienced MACEs over a median follow-up of 4 years (IQR: 1.7-5.7 years). Incident MACEs increased with higher CAC scores, with the highest rates observed with CAC score >300 and in those with prior ASCVD. All-cause mortality, MACEs, MACE + late revascularization, and MI event rates were not statistically significantly different in those with CAC >300 compared with established ASCVD (all P > 0.05). Persons with a CAC score <300 had substantially lower event rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CAC scores >300 are at an equivalent risk of MACE and its components as those treated for established ASCVD. This observation, that those with CAC >300 have event rates comparable to those with established ASCVD, supplies important background for further study related to secondary prevention treatment targets in subjects without prior ASCVD with elevated CAC. Understanding the CAC scores that are associated with ASCVD risk equivalent to stable secondary prevention populations may be important for guiding the intensity of preventive approaches more broadly.

摘要

背景

在无既往动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病(ASCVD)的受试者中,冠状动脉钙化(CAC)评分升高已被证明与心血管风险增加相关。

目的

作者试图确定,对于尚未发生ASCVD事件但CAC评分升高的个体,在心血管危险因素治疗方面,应在何种程度上与已发生过ASCVD事件的患者一样积极。

方法

作者进行了一项队列研究,比较已确诊ASCVD患者的事件发生率与无ASCVD病史但已知钙化评分者的事件发生率,以确定CAC评分升高到何种程度等同于现有ASCVD相关的风险。在多国CONFIRM(冠状动脉CT血管造影临床结局评估:一项国际多中心研究)注册研究中,作者比较了无心肌梗死(MI)或血运重建病史(根据CAC评分分类)者的ASCVD事件发生率与已确诊ASCVD者的事件发生率。他们确定了4511名无已知冠状动脉疾病(CAC)的个体,并与438名已确诊ASCVD的个体进行比较。CAC分为0、1至100、101至300和>300。使用Kaplan-Meier方法,按CAC水平评估无ASCVD病史者以及已确诊ASCVD者的累积主要不良心血管事件(MACE)、MACE加晚期血运重建、MI和全因死亡率发生率。使用Cox比例风险回归分析计算95%CI的HR,并对传统心血管危险因素进行校正。

结果

平均年龄为57.6±12.4岁(56%为男性)。在4949名患者中,共有442名(9%)在中位随访4年(IQR:1.7 - 5.7年)期间发生了MACE。随着CAC评分升高,新发MACE增加,CAC评分>300者以及有既往ASCVD者的发生率最高。与已确诊ASCVD者相比,CAC>300者的全因死亡率、MACE、MACE + 晚期血运重建和MI事件发生率无统计学显著差异(所有P>0.05)。CAC评分<300者的事件发生率显著较低。

结论

CAC评分>300的患者发生MACE及其组成事件的风险与已接受确诊ASCVD治疗的患者相当。这一观察结果,即CAC>300者的事件发生率与已确诊ASCVD者相当,为进一步研究无既往ASCVD但CAC升高的受试者的二级预防治疗目标提供了重要背景。了解与等同于稳定二级预防人群的ASCVD风险相关的CAC评分,可能对更广泛地指导预防措施的强度很重要。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索