Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31005541›Full record

ArticleJACC. Cardiovascular imaging2020

Long-Term All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality in Asymptomatic Patients With CAC ≥1,000: Results From the CAC Consortium.

Allison W Peng, Mohammadhassan Mirbolouk, Olusola A Orimoloye, Albert D Osei, Zeina Dardari, Omar Dzaye, Matthew J Budoff, Leslee Shaw, Michael D Miedema, John Rumberger and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JACC. Cardiovascular imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
13.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 131 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Updates on CAD risk assessment: using the coronary artery calcium score in combination with traditional risk factors.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Allison W PengJohns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Mohammadhassan MirboloukJohns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Olusola A OrimoloyeJohns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Albert D OseiJohns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Zeina DardariJohns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Omar DzayeJohns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Matthew J BudoffDepartment of Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
Leslee ShawDivision of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Michael D MiedemaMinneapolis Heart Institute, Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
John RumbergerPrinceton Longevity Center, Princeton, New Jersey.
Daniel S BermanDepartment of Imaging, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Alan RozanskiDivision of Cardiology, Mount Sinai St. Luke's Hospital, New York, New York.
Mouaz H Al-MallahCardiovascular Imaging Department, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas.
Khurram NasirSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Michael J BlahaJohns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: mblaha1@jhmi.edu.
Johns Hopkins University · USAbbott Northwestern Hospital · USCedars-Sinai Medical Center · USEmory University · USMethodist Hospital · USPrinceton University · USSt. Luke's Hospital · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USYale University · US

Funding

NHLBI NIH HHS L30 HL110027
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study thoroughly explored the demographic and imaging characteristics, as well as the all-cause and cause-specific mortality risks of patients with a coronary artery calcium (CAC) score ≥1,000 in the largest dataset of this population to date.

backgroundCAC is commonly used to quantify cardiovascular risk. Current guidelines classify a CAC score of >300 or 400 as the highest risk group, yet little is known about the potentially unique imaging characteristics and mortality risk in individuals with a CAC score ≥1,000.

methodsA total of 66,636 asymptomatic adults were included from the CAC consortium, a large retrospective multicenter clinical cohort. Mean patient follow-up was 12.3 ± 3.9 years for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), cancer, and all-cause mortality. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for age, sex, and conventional risk factors were used to assess the relative mortality hazard of individuals with CAC ≥1,000 compared with, first, a CAC reference of 0, and second, with patients with a CAC score of 400 to 999.

resultsThere were 2,869 patients with CAC ≥1,000 (86.3% male, mean 66.3 ± 9.7 years of age). Most patients with CAC ≥1,000 had 4-vessel CAC (mean: 3.5 ± 0.6 vessels) and had greater total CAC area, higher mean CAC density, and more extracoronary calcium (79% with thoracic artery calcium, 46% with aortic valve calcium, and 21% with mitral valve calcium) than those with CAC scores of 400 to 999. After full adjustment, those with CAC ≥1,000 had a 5.04- (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.92 to 6.48), 6.79- (95% CI: 4.74 to 9.73), 1.55- (95% CI:1.23 to 1.95), and 2.89-fold (95% CI: 2.53 to 3.31) risk of CVD, CHD, cancer, and all-cause mortality, respectively, compared to those with CAC score of 0. The CAC ≥1,000 group had a 1.71- (95% CI: 1.41 to 2.08), 1.84- (95% CI: 1.43 to 2.36), 1.36- (95% CI:1.07 to 1.73), and 1.51-fold (95% CI: 1.33 to 1.70) increased risk of CVD, CHD, cancer, and all-cause mortality compared to those with CAC scores 400 to 999. Graphic analysis of CAC ≥1,000 patients revealed continued logarithmic increase in risk, with no clear evidence of a risk plateau.

conclusionsPatients with extensive CAC (CAC ≥1,000) represent a unique very high-risk phenotype with mortality outcomes commensurate with high-risk secondary prevention patients. Future guidelines should consider CAC ≥1,000 patients to be a distinct risk group who may benefit from the most aggressive preventive therapy.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAsymptomatic DiseasesCause of DeathComputed Tomography AngiographyCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSeverity of Illness Indexcardiovascular imagingcoronary artery calciumhigh riskprimary preventionrisk scoring

Identifiers

PMID31005541
PMCPMC6745300
OpenAlexW2943382228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.