Circulation · 2026
Predictive Value of Coronary Artery Calcium Score From Nongated Chest CT Scans Compared With Gated Scans and Incidence of Cardiovascular Events.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Verghese Dhiran, Trujillo Robert, Abraham Divya, McClelland Robyn L, Kinninger April, Manubolu Sanjay, Aldana Jairo, Cubeddu Robert J, Drachman Douglas, Inglessis-Azuaje Ignacio, Wang Dee Dee, Fahed Akl, Brumback Lyndia, Blaha Michael J, Allison Matthew, Budoff Matthew J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Data on the prognostic value of incidental coronary artery calcium (CAC) from nongated chest computed tomography scans are limited. Using paired computed tomography scans from the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) exam 5, we evaluated the relationship between nongated CAC, gated CAC, and future cardiovascular events.
METHODS: Between April 2010 and December 2011, a total of 2601 participants underwent same-day gated and nongated chest computed tomography scans. After excluding 106 with previous coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease and 23 for missing covariates, 2472 participants formed the study population. Gated and nongated scans were interpreted at a core laboratory, blinded to acquisition methodology. Cox regression examined associations between CAC (gated and nongated) and incident coronary heart disease/cardiovascular disease events. Correlation was assessed with Pearson coefficients, model performance with receiver operating characteristic curves and C-statistic, and overall accuracy with Brier scores.
RESULTS: Among the 2472 participants, 53% were female, 38% white, 13% Chinese, 26% Black, and 23% Hispanic/Latino. Compared with participants with zero CAC, those with moderate (101-299) and severe (≥300) nongated CAC had higher coronary heart disease risk (hazard ratio, 2.67 [95% CI, 1.14-6.27]; hazard ratio, 5.22 [95% CI, 2.37-11.5]) and cardiovascular disease risk (hazard ratio, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.32-4.04]; hazard ratio, 2.89 [95% CI, 1.68-4.96]). Gated and nongated log-standardized CAC highly correlated (r=0.961; P<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves, C-statistic, and Brier scores were statistically similar for gated and nongated CAC.
CONCLUSIONS: Nongated CAC predicts cardiovascular events with performance comparable to gated CAC. Given the large number of nongated scans performed annually, incorporating their quantification into clinical practice offers a scalable approach to personalized preventive care. Our findings are particularly relevant in light of the recent 2026 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association dyslipidemia guidelines, which endorse the use of incidental CAC from nongated computed tomography scans for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk stratification and guiding lipid-lowering therapy.
METHODS: Between April 2010 and December 2011, a total of 2601 participants underwent same-day gated and nongated chest computed tomography scans. After excluding 106 with previous coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease and 23 for missing covariates, 2472 participants formed the study population. Gated and nongated scans were interpreted at a core laboratory, blinded to acquisition methodology. Cox regression examined associations between CAC (gated and nongated) and incident coronary heart disease/cardiovascular disease events. Correlation was assessed with Pearson coefficients, model performance with receiver operating characteristic curves and C-statistic, and overall accuracy with Brier scores.
RESULTS: Among the 2472 participants, 53% were female, 38% white, 13% Chinese, 26% Black, and 23% Hispanic/Latino. Compared with participants with zero CAC, those with moderate (101-299) and severe (≥300) nongated CAC had higher coronary heart disease risk (hazard ratio, 2.67 [95% CI, 1.14-6.27]; hazard ratio, 5.22 [95% CI, 2.37-11.5]) and cardiovascular disease risk (hazard ratio, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.32-4.04]; hazard ratio, 2.89 [95% CI, 1.68-4.96]). Gated and nongated log-standardized CAC highly correlated (r=0.961; P<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves, C-statistic, and Brier scores were statistically similar for gated and nongated CAC.
CONCLUSIONS: Nongated CAC predicts cardiovascular events with performance comparable to gated CAC. Given the large number of nongated scans performed annually, incorporating their quantification into clinical practice offers a scalable approach to personalized preventive care. Our findings are particularly relevant in light of the recent 2026 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association dyslipidemia guidelines, which endorse the use of incidental CAC from nongated computed tomography scans for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk stratification and guiding lipid-lowering therapy.