Subclinical cardiovascular disease and utility of coronary artery calcium score

Abstract

ASCVD are the leading causes of mortality and morbidity among Globe. Evaluation of patients’ comprehensive and personalized risk provides risk management strategies and preventive interventions to achieve gain for patients. Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and Systemic Coronary Risk Evaluation Score (SCORE) are two well studied risk scoring models, however, can miss some (20–35%) of future cardiovascular events. To obtain more accurate risk assessment recalibrating risk models through utilizing novel risk markers have been studied in last 3 decades and both ESC and AHA recommends assessing Family History, hs-CRP, CACS, ABI, and CIMT. Subclinical Cardiovascular Disease (SCVD) has been conceptually developed for investigating gradually progressing asymptomatic development of atherosclerosis and among these novel risk markers it has been well established by literature that CACS having highest improvement in risk assessment. This review study mainly selectively discussing studies with CACS measurement. A CACS = 0 can down-stratify risk of patients otherwise treated or treatment eligible before test and can reduce unnecessary interventions and cost, whereas CACS ≥ 100 is equivalent to statin treatment threshold of ≥ 7.5% risk level otherwise statin ineligible before test. Since inflammation, insulin resistance, oxidative stress, dyslipidemia and ongoing endothelial damage due to hypertension could lead to CAC, ASCVD linked with comorbidities. Recent cohort studies have shown a CACS 100–300 as a sign of increased cancer risk. Physical activity, dietary factors, cigarette use, alcohol consumption, metabolic health, family history of CHD, aging, exposures of neighborhood environment and non-cardiovascular comorbidities can determine CACs changes.

Keywords

• FRS
• SCORE
• SCVD
• CACS
• CVE
• ASCVD