1 / 24

Coronary Calcium Scoring for Risk Stratification and Guidelines Matthew Budoff, MD, FACC, FAHA Professor of Medicine Dir

Coronary Calcium Scoring for Risk Stratification and Guidelines Matthew Budoff, MD, FACC, FAHA Professor of Medicine Director, Cardiac CT Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA. Name of company: GE - grant . NEW GUIDELINES. I. I. IIa. IIa. IIb. IIb. III. III. B. B. I. IIa.

amos
Download Presentation

Coronary Calcium Scoring for Risk Stratification and Guidelines Matthew Budoff, MD, FACC, FAHA Professor of Medicine Dir

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Coronary Calcium Scoring for Risk Stratification and Guidelines Matthew Budoff, MD, FACC, FAHA Professor of Medicine Director, Cardiac CT Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA Name of company: GE - grant

  2. NEW GUIDELINES

  3. I I IIa IIa IIb IIb III III B B I IIa IIb III B Recommendations for Calcium Scoring Methods Measurement of CAC is reasonable for cardiovascular risk assessment in asymptomatic adults at intermediate risk (10% to 20% 10-year risk. Measurement of CAC may be reasonable for cardiovascular risk assessment persons at low to intermediate risk (6% to 10% 10-year risk). In asymptomatic adults with diabetes, 40 years of age and older, measurement of CAC is reasonable for cardiovascular risk assessment.

  4. Computed tomography for coronary calcium should be considered for cardiovascular risk assessment in asymptomatic adults at moderate risk. IIa

  5. Yeboah JAMA 2012 - MESA

  6. CAC and CTA Hou JACC 2012

  7. BIOMARKERS Wang NEJM 2006 10 biomarkers in 3209 participants attending a routine examination of the Framingham Heart Study: the levels of C-reactive protein, B-type natriuretic peptide, N-terminal pro–atrial natriuretic peptide, aldosterone, renin, fibrinogen, D-dimer, plasminogen-activator inhibitor type 1, and homocysteine; and the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio.

  8. NEJM CRP/Fibrinogen Oct 2012 • Net Reclassification with CRP 1.5%

  9. BLAHA Lancet 2011

  10. MESA – BLAHA Lancet 2011

  11. Shemesh - Ungated Studies8782 patients, 6 year f/u

  12. Reclassification of ATP III Risk Categories Using CAC CAC Score high risk Intermediate risk low risk 51.5% 19.7% 28.8% 14.1 % 23.1 % 62.9 % 0 10 20 % 10-year risk ATPIII Score Risk Assessment Scheme according to Wilson PWF et al JACC 41:1889 – 1906, 2003 with HNR data

  13. Rotterdam Heart – JACC 2010 Addition of CRP did not improve C Statistic or Reclassification

  14. Rotterdam – Annals 2012

  15. CAC and CHF – Rotterdam JACC 2012 • 1897 Patients • 6.8 year follow up • CAC scores were associated with heart failure (p 0.001), with a hazard ratio of 4.1 • Net reclassification index 34.0%).

  16. EISNER Randomized Controlled Trial 2137 middle-aged + risk factors without CVD45-79y without CAD/CVD followed 4 years No Scan Scan • Clinical evaluation • Questionnaire • Risk factor consultation • Clinical evaluation • Questionnaire • Risk factor consultation • CAC scan • Scan consultation Rozanski. Berman. Early Identification of Subclinical Atherosclerosis by Noninvasive Imaging Research. JACC 2011;57:1622.

  17. Does CAC scanning improve outcomes? • Favorable change in RF, Rx with increasing CAC • CACS may effectively triage care – evaluation, intensification of therapy – without increasing cost Rozanski. Berman. EISNER. JACC 2011;57:1622. CACS 0 = 631. CACS>400 = 109.

  18. EISNER Study – Costs Compared to No Scan Group P<0.005 for both measures Rozanski JACC 2011

  19. NICE GUIDELINES

  20. NICE GUIDELINES

  21. NICE ALGORITHM

  22. “Imaging has at least 3 virtues” It individualizes risk assessment beyond use of age, which is a less reliable surrogate for atherosclerosis burden It provides an integrated assessment of the lifetime exposure to risk factors It identifies individuals who are susceptible to developing atherosclerosis beyond established risk factors Grundy. Circulation 2008;117:569-573

  23. “Imaging has at least 3 virtues” Once subclinical atherosclerosis is detected, intensity of drug therapy could be adjusted for plaque burden Grundy. Circulation 2008;117:569-573

More Related