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
Review
. 2017 Aug;10(8):923-937.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.05.007.

Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring: Is It Time for a Change in Methodology?

Affiliations
Free article
Review

Coronary Artery Calcium Scoring: Is It Time for a Change in Methodology?

Michael J Blaha et al. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Aug.
Free article

Abstract

Quantification of coronary artery calcium (CAC) has been shown to be reliable, reproducible, and predictive of cardiovascular risk. Formal CAC scoring was introduced in 1990, with early scoring algorithms notable for their simplicity and elegance. Yet, with little evidence available on how to best build a score, and without a conceptual model guiding score development, these scores were, to a large degree, arbitrary. In this review, we describe the traditional approaches for clinical CAC scoring, noting their strengths, weaknesses, and limitations. We then discuss a conceptual model for developing an improved CAC score, reviewing the evidence supporting approaches most likely to lead to meaningful score improvement (for example, accounting for CAC density and regional distribution). After discussing the potential implementation of an improved score in clinical practice, we follow with a discussion of the future of CAC scoring, asking the central question: do we really need a new CAC score?

Keywords: cardiac CT; cardiovascular disease; coronary artery calcium; prediction; risk; score.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources