Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2016 Feb;9(2):152-9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.06.030. Epub 2016 Jan 6.

Relationship of Coronary Calcium on Standard Chest CT Scans With Mortality

Jan M Hughes-Austin  1 , Arturo Dominguez 3rd  2 , Matthew A Allison  3 , Christina L Wassel  4 , Dena E Rifkin  3 , Cindy G Morgan  5 , Michael R Daniels  5 , Umaira Ikram  5 , Jessica B Knox  5 , C Michael Wright  6 , Michael H Criqui  5 , Joachim H Ix  7
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Relationship of Coronary Calcium on Standard Chest CT Scans With Mortality

Jan M Hughes-Austin et al. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Feb.

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the correlation between coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores on 3 mm electrocardiography (ECG)-gated computed tomography (CT) scans and standard 6 mm chest CT scans, and to compare relative strength of associations of CAC on each scan type with mortality risk.

Background: Coronary artery calcification predicts cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality, and is typically measured on ECG-gated 3 mm CT scans. Patients undergo standard 6 mm chest CTs for various clinical indications much more frequently, but CAC is not usually quantified. To better understand the usefulness of standard chest CTs to quantify CAC, we conducted a case-control study among persons who had both scan types.

Methods: Between 2000 and 2003, 4,544 community-living individuals self- or physician-referred for "whole-body" CT scans, had 3 mm ECG-gated CTs and standard 6 mm chest CTs, and were followed for mortality through 2009. In this nested case-control study, we identified 157 deaths and 494 controls frequency matched (1:3) on age and sex. The Agatston method quantified CAC on both scan types. Unconditional logistic regression determined associations with mortality, accounting for CVD risk factors.

Results: Participants were 68 ± 11 years of age and 63% male. The Spearman correlation of CAC scores between the 2 scan types was 0.93 (p < 0.001); median CAC scores were lower on 6 mm CTs compared to 3 mm CTs (22 vs.104 Agatston units, p < 0.001). Adjusted for traditional CVD risk factors, each standard deviation higher CAC score on 6 mm CTs was associated with 50% higher odds of death (odds ratio: 1.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.2 to 1.9), similar to 50% higher odds on the 3 mm ECG-gated CTs (odds ratio: 1.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.1 to 1.9).

Conclusions: CAC scores on standard 6 mm chest CTs are strongly correlated with 3 mm ECG-gated CTs and similarly predict mortality in community-living individuals. Chest CTs performed for other clinical indications may provide an untapped resource to garner CVD risk information without additional radiation exposure or expense.

Keywords: chest computed tomography; coronary artery calcium; epidemiology; mortality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scatter Plot Agatston CAC Score on 6mm Chest CT and 3mm Cardiac ECG-Gated CT Scans
Spearman Correlation r = 0.93, p < 0.001 ● = Cases (n=157) ○ = Controls (n=494)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Bland-Altman Plots for Agreement Between 3mm ECG-Gated CT Scans and 6mm Standard Chest CT Scans
*Log transformed mean bias (center line) was 1.17 (±0.855), which back transforms to 3.23, with limits of agreement ranging from 0.6 to 17.3 (top and bottom dashed lines).
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustrative Example of the Difference in Sensitivity between 3mm ECG-Gated CT Scans and 6mm Chest CT Scans in a Single Slice within an Individual
A. 3mm ECG-gated CT (Agatston CAC Score = 372.09) B. 6mm Chest CT (Agatston CAC Score = 116.58)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustrative Example of the Difference in Sensitivity between 3mm ECG-Gated CT Scans and 6mm Chest CT Scans in a Single Slice within an Individual
A. 3mm ECG-gated CT (Agatston CAC Score = 372.09) B. 6mm Chest CT (Agatston CAC Score = 116.58)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Illustrative Example of the Difference in Sensitivity between 3mm ECG-Gated CT Scans and 6mm Chest CT Scans in Two Consecutive Slices within an Individual
A.1, A.2 Two consecutive slices from 3mm ECG-gated CT within an individual (Agatston CAC Score = 3212.75) B.1, B.2 Two consecutive slices from 6mm Chest CT within an individual (Agatston CAC Score = 1044.00)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Illustrative Example of the Difference in Sensitivity between 3mm ECG-Gated CT Scans and 6mm Chest CT Scans in Two Consecutive Slices within an Individual
A.1, A.2 Two consecutive slices from 3mm ECG-gated CT within an individual (Agatston CAC Score = 3212.75) B.1, B.2 Two consecutive slices from 6mm Chest CT within an individual (Agatston CAC Score = 1044.00)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Illustrative Example of the Difference in Sensitivity between 3mm ECG-Gated CT Scans and 6mm Chest CT Scans in Two Consecutive Slices within an Individual
A.1, A.2 Two consecutive slices from 3mm ECG-gated CT within an individual (Agatston CAC Score = 3212.75) B.1, B.2 Two consecutive slices from 6mm Chest CT within an individual (Agatston CAC Score = 1044.00)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Illustrative Example of the Difference in Sensitivity between 3mm ECG-Gated CT Scans and 6mm Chest CT Scans in Two Consecutive Slices within an Individual
A.1, A.2 Two consecutive slices from 3mm ECG-gated CT within an individual (Agatston CAC Score = 3212.75) B.1, B.2 Two consecutive slices from 6mm Chest CT within an individual (Agatston CAC Score = 1044.00)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Forest Plots of Odds Ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals for the Associations between 3mm ECG-Gated CT Scans and Mortality and 6mm Chest CT Scans and Mortality
*Adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, BMI, smoking, and family history of CVD
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

  • "See No Evil".
    Hecht HS. Hecht HS. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Feb;9(2):160-2. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.08.020. Epub 2016 Jan 6. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016. PMID: 26777214 No abstract available.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Thomas KL, Honeycutt E, Shaw LK, Peterson ED. Racial differences in long-term survival among patients with coronary artery disease. Am Heart J. 2010 Oct;160(4):744–51. Comparative Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t. - PubMed
    1. Polonsky TS, McClelland RL, Jorgensen NW, et al. Coronary artery calcium score and risk classification for coronary heart disease prediction. Jama. 2010 Apr 28;303(16):1610–6. Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shemesh J, Henschke CI, Shaham D, et al. Ordinal scoring of coronary artery calcifications on low-dose CT scans of the chest is predictive of death from cardiovascular disease. Radiology. 2010 Nov;257(2):541–8. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t. - PubMed
    1. Shaw LJ, Raggi P, Callister TQ, Berman DS. Prognostic value of coronary artery calcium screening in asymptomatic smokers and non-smokers. Eur Heart J. 2006 Apr;27(8):968–75. - PubMed
    1. O’Malley PG, Greenberg BA, Taylor AJ. Cost-effectiveness of using electron beam computed tomography to identify patients at risk for clinical coronary artery disease. Am Heart J. 2004 Jul;148(1):106–13. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms