ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Association of coronary artery calcium score with cardiovascular events: a retrospective study.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The coronary artery calcium score (CACS) reflects coronary atherosclerosis burden, but its predictive value in different populations remains to be fully elucidated. The aim of this study was to investigate the predictive value of CACS for cardiovascular events in different patient populations. Methods: One hundred patients (mean age 65.4±10.7 years; 63 males) who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) were retrospectively enrolled and classified into four CACS strata (0, 1-100, 101-399, ≥400). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) at 1 year. Survival curves and Cox regression were performed. Results: Patients with CACS ≥400 had the lowest 1-year survival probability (log-rank P=0.011), while CACS =0 group had the highest survival. Cox regression suggested CACS ≥400 was associated with a 4.76-fold higher risk of mortality or MACE compared to CACS =0 [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 4.76, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.82-12.45, P=0.012], after adjusting for age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia. Significant predictors included male sex (HR 3.72, P=0.047), smoking (HR 2.87, P=0.013), and hypertension (HR 4.76, P=0.009). In subgroup analysis, the predictive value of CACS was robust in males (P=0.0031) and hypertensive patients (P=0.021), but not significant in females or normotensives (P>0.5). Conclusions: CACS is a significant independent predictor of mortality and MACE in symptomatic patients, with the strongest discriminative power in males and those with hypertension. These findings support the utility of CACS for risk stratification and early identification of high-risk individuals in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.