Use of Coronary Artery Calcium Quantification and Distribution for Coronary Vascular Disease Risk Reclassification in a Primary Prevention Setting

In a large screening program of asymptomatic middle-aged individuals, we sought to assess the degree of risk reclassification provided by comparing multiethnic study on subclinical atherosclerosis coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS) versus atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and Reynolds risk score (RRS) score. All 5,324 consecutive patients (aged 57 +/- 8 years, 76% male) who underwent CACS screening at the Cleveland Clinic as part of a primary prevention executive health between March 16 and October 21 were included. The 10-year ASCVD, RRS, and multiethnic study on subclinical atherosclerosis CACS (MESA-CACS) risk scores were calculated and categorized as <1, 1 to 4.99, 5 to 9.99, and >= 10%. Compared with ASCVD, using MESA-CACS resulted in a downgraded risk in 1,667 subjects (31%), whereas 738 (14%) had an upgrade in risk (total of 45% reclassification). Similarly, compared with RRS, using MESA-CACS resulted in an upgraded risk in 797 (15%) and a downgrade in 1,380 (26%) subjects (total of 41% reclassification). However, by further dividing by the distribution of the coronary calcification, ASCVD overestimates the risk only for patients with coronary artery calcium (CAC) in 0 or 1 coronary artery only, whereas MESA-CACS overestimates if the CAC was noted in >= 2 arteries. Similarly, RRS only overestimates the risk for patients with 0 CAC, whereas it underestimates the risk for patients with any CAC. In conclusion, the use of MESA-CACS, along with CAC distribution in primary prevention clinics, results in differential and significant reclassification of traditional scores when calculating the 10-years coronary vascular disease risk. Overall, RRS underestimates and ASCVD overestimates the cardiovascular disease risk compared with MESA-CACS.(c) 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.