ArticleJournal of cardiovascular computed tomography
Impact of coronary artery calcium testing on patient management.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular computed tomography. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of provision of abdominal aortic calcification results on fruit and vegetable intake: 12-week randomized phase 2 controlled trial.Nature communications · 2024Trial
- Coronary Artery Calcium Scores in Older Adults With Diabetes and Their Association With Diabetes-Specific Risk Enhancers (from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study).The American journal of cardiology · 2023Article
- Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring in Asymptomatic Patients.HCA healthcare journal of medicine · 2023Review
- The use of coronary artery calcium scoring in young adults.Journal of cardiovascular computed tomographyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCoronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring can identify individuals who may benefit from aggressive prevention therapies. However, there is a paucity of contemporary data on the impact of CAC testing on patient management.
methodsRetrospective cohort study of adults who underwent CAC testing at Brigham and Women's Hospital between 2015 and 2019. Information on baseline medications, follow-up medications, lifestyle modification, and downstream cardiovascular testing within one-year post-CAC were obtained from electronic health records.
resultsOf the 839 patients with available baseline and follow-up data, 376 (45%) had a CAC = 0, 289 (34%) had CAC = 1-99, and 174 (21%) had CAC≥100. The mean age at time of CAC testing was 59 ± 9.7 years. Patients with higher CAC scores were more likely to be male, have diabetes and hypertension, and have higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. A non-zero CAC score was associated with initiation of aspirin (41% increase, p < 0.001), anti-hypertensives (9% increase, p = 0.031), and lipid-lowering therapies (114% increase, p < 0.001), whereas CAC = 0 was not. Among individuals with CAC≥100, 75% were started on new or more intense lipid-lowering therapy. Higher calcium scores correlated with increased physician recommendations for diet (p = 0.008) and exercise (p = 0.004). The proportion of cardiovascular downstream testing following CAC was 9.1%, and the majority of patients who underwent additional testing post-CAC had CAC scores ≥100.
conclusionApproximately half of individuals referred for CAC testing had evidence of calcified coronary plaque, and of those who had significant calcifications (CAC≥100), nearly 90% were prescribed lipid-lowering therapies post-CAC. Rates of downstream non-invasive testing were low and such testing was mostly performed in patients who had at least moderate CAC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.