Skip to main content
Open Access Publications from the University of California

Validation of the Coronary Artery Calcium Data and Reporting System (CAC-DRS): Dual importance of CAC score and CAC distribution from the Coronary Artery Calcium (CAC) consortium.

  • Author(s): Dzaye, Omar
  • Dudum, Ramzi
  • Mirbolouk, Mohammadhassan
  • Orimoloye, Olusola A
  • Osei, Albert D
  • Dardari, Zeina A
  • Berman, Daniel S
  • Miedema, Michael D
  • Shaw, Leslee
  • Rozanski, Alan
  • Holdhoff, Matthias
  • Nasir, Khurram
  • Rumberger, John A
  • Budoff, Matthew J
  • Al-Mallah, Mouaz H
  • Blankstein, Ron
  • Blaha, Michael J
  • et al.

BACKGROUND:The Coronary Artery Calcium Data and Reporting System (CAC-DRS), which takes into account the Agatston score category (A) and the number of calcified vessels (N) has not yet been validated in terms of its prognostic significance. METHODS:We included 54,678 patients from the CAC Consortium, a large retrospective clinical cohort of asymptomatic individuals free of baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD). CAC-DRS groups were derived from routine, cardiac-gated CAC scans. Cox proportional hazards regression models, adjusted for traditional CVD risk factors, were used to assess the association between CAC-DRS groups and CHD, CVD, and all-cause mortality. CAC-DRS was then compared to CAC score groups and regional CAC distribution using area under the curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS:The study population had a mean age of 54.2 ± 10.7, 34.4% female, and mean ASCVD score 7.3% ± 9.0. Over a mean follow-up of 12 ± 4 years, a total of 2,469 deaths (including 398 CHD deaths and 762 CVD deaths) were recorded. There was a graded risk for CHD, CVD and all-cause mortality with increasing CAC-DRS groups ranging from an all-cause mortality rate of 1.2 per 1,000 person-years for A0 to 15.4 per 1,000 person-years for A3/N4. In multivariable-adjusted models, those with CAC-DRS A3/N4 had significantly higher risk for CHD mortality (HR 5.9 (95% CI 3.6-9.9), CVD mortality (HR4.0 (95% CI 2.8-5.7), and all-cause mortality a (HR 2.5 (95% CI 2.1-3.0) compared to CAC-DRS A0. CAC-DRS had higher AUC than CAC score groups (0.762 vs 0.754, P < 0.001) and CAC distribution (0.762 vs 0.748, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION:The CAC-DRS system, combining the Agatston score and the number of vessels with CAC provides better stratification of risk for CHD, CVD, and all-cause death than the Agatston score alone. These prognostic data strongly support new SCCT guidelines recommending the use CAC-DRS scoring.

Many UC-authored scholarly publications are freely available on this site because of the UC's open access policies. Let us know how this access is important for you.

Main Content
Current View