2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2021.03.043
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Coronary Artery Calcium: Where Do We Stand After Over 3 Decades?

Abstract: This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…2,3 While the pooled cohort equation remains the cornerstone to estimate ASCVD risk, it can overestimate or underestimate risk in some sub- populations. 23 Hence, it is reasonable to consider individual risk factors that may refi ne patient risk and subsequently individualize treatment strategy. However, if risk assessment is still uncertain after accounting for risk-enhancing factors in patients with borderline or intermediate risk or if the patient is still reluctant to start treatment, obtaining a CAC score is reasonable (class IIa).…”
Section: ■ Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…2,3 While the pooled cohort equation remains the cornerstone to estimate ASCVD risk, it can overestimate or underestimate risk in some sub- populations. 23 Hence, it is reasonable to consider individual risk factors that may refi ne patient risk and subsequently individualize treatment strategy. However, if risk assessment is still uncertain after accounting for risk-enhancing factors in patients with borderline or intermediate risk or if the patient is still reluctant to start treatment, obtaining a CAC score is reasonable (class IIa).…”
Section: ■ Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, it is noteworthy that this relation is controversial, as even though the amount of coronary calcification seems to have predictive value for CV events in various populations, the actual impact of calcification on plaque "stability" remains elusive [14,15]. In clinical terms, the visualized presence of calcium deposits within coronary vessels, quantified by the CAC score, showed a robust correlation with CAD [16][17][18][19]. A CAC score of 0 has been consistently associated with a very low risk of adverse CV events and low mortality, whereas very high CAC scores strongly indicate substantial CV risks and advanced plaque burden, as they are associated with increased risks of all causes of mortality, extensive coronary plaque burden, adverse CV events, and even cancer [20,21].…”
Section: Pathophysiology Of Vascular Calcification Arterial Stiffness and Their Interrelationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite undeniable improvement in percutaneous treatment of coronary artery disease resulting from the introduction of the second generation of drug-eluting stents, calcified coronary lesions are still a challenge for interventional cardiology. According to the literature, calcified plaque burden is increasing with age and the prevalence of renal insufficiency, hypertension, and diabetes [1]; it is an independent risk factor for future cardiovascular events [2]. Coronary interventions in calcified lesions are inextricably linked with a higher rate of periprocedural complications (including dissections, perforations, impairment of stent delivery, and deployment) and several long-term adverse events (such as stent failure, thrombosis, restenosis, and repeat revascularization) [3].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%