FB-TW

Showing posts with label Coronary Artery Calcium. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coronary Artery Calcium. Show all posts

Friday, January 17, 2014

Ascorbic Acid to Coronary Artery Calcium

Relation of Ascorbic Acid to Coronary Artery Calcium

The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study

Abstract

Ascorbic acid is an antioxidant nutrient possibly related to the development of atherosclerosis. To examine the relation between ascorbic acid and coronary artery calcium, an indicator of subclinical coronary disease, the authors analyzed data from 2,637 African-American and White men and women aged 18–30 years at baseline who were enrolled in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study (1985–2001). Participants completed diet histories at enrollment and year 7, and plasma ascorbic acid levels were obtained at year 10. Coronary artery computed tomography was performed at year 15. The authors calculated odds ratios in four biologically relevant plasma ascorbic acid categories, adjusting for possible confounding variables. When compared with men with high plasma ascorbic acid levels, men with low levels to marginally low levels had an increased prevalence of coronary artery calcium (multivariate odds ratio = 2.68, 95% confidence interval: 1.31, 5.48). Among women, the association was attenuated and nonsignificant (multivariate odds ratio = 1.50, 95% confidence interval: 0.58, 3.85). Ascorbic acid intakes from diet alone and diet plus supplements were not associated with coronary artery calcium. Low to marginally low plasma ascorbic acid levels were associated with a higher prevalence of coronary artery calcium among men but not among women.
.
.
.

DISCUSSION

Overall, our study produced mixed findings. The main positive finding was that low to marginally low plasma ascorbic acid levels (measured at year 10) were associated with an approximately threefold higher prevalence of coronary artery calcium (ascertained at year 15) among men independently of other cardiovascular disease risk factors, including smoking. We did not, however, observe a similar relation among women, perhaps because fewer women had coronary artery calcium, thereby limiting our statistical power to detect such an association. We also cannot exclude the possibility that our findings resulted from chance or residual confounding. The findings among men concur with findings from cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of participants in the Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II) (7, 15). Simon et al. (15) reported previously that NHANES II participants with low to marginally low serum ascorbic acid levels had an increased prevalence of self-reported coronary heart disease. In the NHANES II Mortality Study, which followed participants for a mean of 14 years, Simon et al. (7) found a trend toward increased cardiovascular disease mortality among individuals with low to marginally low serum ascorbic acid levels. Similar to our current findings, those from the NHANES II Mortality Study did not reflect a relation between dietary intake of ascorbic acid and cardiovascular disease endpoints (7).
                 
Our current findings are also consistent with results from some observational studies that also reported low blood ascorbic acid levels to be a risk factor for coronary heart disease (35, 8, 16, 17). Not all observational studies have reported such an association (6, 18), and the few randomized trials examining the effect of vitamin C supplementation on coronary heart disease endpoints, typically in combination with other antioxidants, have produced inconsistent results, ranging from decreased risk to no effect to increased risk (1922). Specifically determining whether marginal vitamin C deficiency is a factor in the development of atherosclerotic coronary disease would be of considerable public health importance, since blood levels consistent with marginal deficiency are prevalent in the population (7) and readily modifiable.
                 
Conclusions based on our findings are qualified by limitations in the study design. We collected information on plasma levels of ascorbic acid 5 years before the coronary artery calcium measurement, but we do not have coronary artery calcium scores before year 15. Therefore, we cannot be certain that differences in plasma ascorbic acid preceded the development of coronary artery calcium since we cannot exclude the possibility that subclinical coronary disease lowered plasma ascorbic acid levels. The concern about the direction of causality is underscored in part because we were unable to find an association between dietary ascorbic acid intake (measured at baseline and year 7) and coronary artery calcium; that is, since blood levels of ascorbic acid are generally correlated with intake, a similar association between lower ascorbic acid intakes and coronary artery calcium would have been expected.
                 
There are several potential explanations for these findings. Because the dietary assessments were performed at baseline and year 7 and plasma ascorbic acid levels were assayed at year 10, we cannot exclude the possibility that dietary and supplement use changed during the intervening period, although we did find a weak, albeit statistically significant, correlation between dietary ascorbic acid intake and plasma ascorbic acid levels (r = 0.14; p < 0.0001). It is also possible that the dietary assessments were not sufficiently accurate or precise to permit the detection of the association. Prospective studies that examined dietary intake of ascorbic acid as a predictor of cardiovascular disease have produced contradictory results. An analysis of data from the First National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Epidemiologic Follow-up Study found that individuals with the highest intakes of ascorbic acid had 25–50 percent lower cardiovascular disease mortality (23). Dietary ascorbic acid intake was also associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease death among Finnish women (24) and a group of 747 noninstitutionalized elderly Massachusetts residents (25). The Nurses’ Health Study (26), the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (27), and others (28, 29), however, found no significant association between ascorbic acid intake and risk of coronary heart disease.
                 
Ascorbic acid may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease by a number of mechanisms. Antioxidant status has been hypothesized to be an important factor in atherogenesis, and ascorbic acid is a highly effective water-soluble antioxidant capable of inhibiting lipid peroxidation (30, 31). In some studies, ascorbic acid blood levels and dietary intake have been associated with increased levels of high density lipoprotein cholesterol and decreased levels of total cholesterol (1, 32, 33). The inverse relation between plasma ascorbic acid levels and coronary artery calcium that we observed, however, was independent of cholesterol levels. Ascorbic acid promotes endothelial prostacyclin production (34), improves endothelium-dependent vasodilation (2), and is essential for vascular collagen formation, all factors that may be associated with cardiovascular disease risk. Despite the potential for ascorbic acid to lower the risk for cardiovascular disease, recent clinical trials using antioxidant cocktails that contain ascorbic acid have failed to lower cardiovascular disease risk (1922). We are unaware, however, of clinical trials using ascorbic acid supplementation specifically among individuals with low to marginally low blood levels, our postulated high-risk group.
                 
In addition to the limitations discussed, we were also limited by having only a single measurement of plasma ascorbic acid, which may not reflect long-term plasma concentrations optimally. However, plasma ascorbic acid levels reflect at least the previous several months of dietary intake, even during periods of seasonal variation (35), and are strongly correlated with leukocyte ascorbic acid levels, an indicator of tissue ascorbic acid levels (36, 37). We cannot exclude the possibility that our findings were affected by residual confounding (especially from smoking) or that plasma ascorbic acid levels were simply a healthy diet or lifestyle marker. The association of low plasma ascorbic acid levels with higher prevalence of coronary artery calcium among men was, however, independent of the effects of other lifestyle-related variables, such as education and exercise.
                 
In conclusion, we found that low to marginally low plasma ascorbic acid levels were independently associated with a higher prevalence of coronary artery calcium in young adult men but not in young adult women. Because we cannot exclude chance or residual confounding as an explanation of our findings, our results need to be confirmed by other investigators.
 

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
  34. 34.
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
  37. 37.
    Abstract/FREE Full ============================================================ Read the complete article here.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Coronary artery calcium bests other risk markers.. - O'Riordan

Coronary artery calcium bests other risk markers for CVD risk assessment

August 22, 2012 Michael O'Riordan


Winston-Salem, NC - A comparison of multiple risk markers suggests that coronary artery calcium (CAC) provides the most improvement in the assessment of cardiovascular disease risk in patients at intermediate risk for future events [1]. Ankle-brachial index, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), family history, and CAC were all independent risk predictors for incident coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease, but CAC provided superior discrimination and risk reclassification compared with the other risk markers.
 
"If you go to any cardiologist, all that they're doing while you're sitting in front of them is trying to put you into one of three risk categories," lead investigator Dr Joseph Yeboah (Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC) told heartwire. "We know what we should do for low-risk people. We just emphasize lifestyle changes, and most of the time over 10 years nothing happens to them. We know that in high-risk patients, in addition to lifestyle, certain medications work. What we don't know how to do is treat people who fall into the intermediate group. They're in no-man's land. Yet we know a chunk of the people who have heart attacks are within this group. This tells us that there are people who are wrongly put into this category based on current risk tools."
 
In an editorial accompanying the study [2], Dr J Michael Gaziano (Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA) and Dr Peter Wilson (Atlanta Veteran Affairs Medical Center, GA) agree that a CAC scan might help guide clinical decisions, but radiation exposure and costs remain important considerations. "Coronary artery calcium findings also are somewhat resistant to change even in the face of improvement in risk factors and may be useful as a single measure for assessment, especially when refinement of a risk estimate is important, but might not be useful for tracking risk over time," according to the editorialists.
 
The study and editorial are published in the August 22, 2012 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Data from the MESA study
Using data from the Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), the researchers identified 1330 intermediate-risk patients without diabetes mellitus who had data available for all six of the following cardiovascular risk markers: CAC, carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT), ankle-brachial index (ABI), brachial flow-mediated dilation (FMD), and CRP, as well as family history of coronary heart disease. The purpose of the study, explained Yeboah, was to test the effectiveness of these "top-tier" risk markers for cardiovascular risk stratification when added to conventional risk scores in the same group of patients.
 
After a median follow-up of 7.6 years, there were 123 cardiovascular events. CAC, ABI, high-sensitivity CRP, and family history of coronary heart disease were independently associated with incident coronary heart disease, defined as a composite of MI, angina followed by revascularization, resuscitated cardiac arrest, and coronary heart disease death.
Association of risk markers with incident coronary heart disease*

Risk markerHazard ratio (95% CI)
Ankle-brachial index0.79 (0.66-0.96)
Brachial flow-mediated dilation0.93 (0.74-1.16)
Coronary artery calcium 2.60 (1.94-3.50)
Carotid intima-media thickness1.17 (0.96-1.45)
Family history2.18 (1.38-3.42)
High-sensitivity CRP1.28 (1.00-1.64)

*Adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, smoking status, body-mass index, use of blood-pressure medication, and use of statins

For coronary and cardiovascular disease events, which included stroke and cardiovascular death, the addition of each of the six markers to the Framingham risk score significantly improved the discrimination of clinical events compared with the Framingham score alone. The area under the curve (AUC) improved for all the risk markers but improved the most with CAC scoring. With the addition of CAC, the AUC improved from 0.623 to 0.784.
 
Similarly, CAC fared best when assessed by net reclassification improvement (NRI), a measure of the relative improvement in the classification of risk with the additional variable. The researchers note that 25.5% of the events were reclassified correctly to the high-risk category, while 40.4% of nonevents were reclassified into the low-risk group. The NRI for the addition of CAC to the Framingham risk score, plus race/ethnicity, was 0.659, the highest reported NRI of the six risk markers.

CAC fares best, but there are caveats
While CAC performed the best of the six markers, Yeboah said that there are important caveats to the results. Echoing the editorialists, he told heartwire that only CAC scoring exposes patients to a small, but not trivial, amount of radiation. He said the long-term effects of radiation on patients remain unknown and will need to be determined before widespread screening using CAC can be used to help the decision-making process.
 
There would be no benefit to society if we drastically reduce the number of heart attacks only to find out that everybody is developing cancer.
 
"There would be no benefit to society if we drastically reduce the number of heart attacks only to find out that everybody is developing cancer," said Yeboah.
 
In addition, there are no outcome studies showing that adding CAC screening to traditional risk scoring systems in intermediate-risk patients reduces the risk of cardiovascular events. If these caveats are addressed, said Yeboah, then CAC screening should be used for the 28 million US adults who fall within the intermediate-risk category. Currently, the American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology say it is "reasonable" to use CAC as a screening method for intermediate-risk patients.
 
In their editorial, Gaziano and Wilson note that research into general cardiovascular disease prevention is timely, given that the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel 4 treatment guidelines are expected this year, and the addition of novel risk markers to Framingham or the Reynolds risk score might help physicians make a decision about whether or not to start a patient on lifelong statin therapy.
 
They note, however, that if a patient is near a boundary for lipid-lowering therapy, the doctor can simply choose to see the patient again in a few months rather than order a costly CAC imaging test. Reassessing vascular risk with a patient visit to repeat tests might improve accuracy and reveal trends that could help guide treatment decisions, according to Gaziano and Wilson. While CAC scores can help augment the risk-assessment process, they have limited utility in tracking a patient's progress, as the test is not likely to be repeated over time.
============================================================
Read the full article here.

Monday, February 28, 2011

Coronary Artery Calcium (CAC) Scanning

From: http://www.theheart.org/

Texas Heart Attack Prevention legislation "premature," expert says

February 28, 2011 |                                 Shelley Wood
Dallas, TX - The quiet passage of 2009's Texas Heart Attack Prevention Bill will have ramifications that will "ring loudly" for public health, predicts a Commentary published in the Archives of Internal Medicine this week [1].
As reported in-depth by heartwire, the bill, known as HB 1290, grew out of a bold, unprecedented proposal from the Society for Heart Attack Prevention and Education (SHAPE, a group with no ties to either of the main cardiology professional societies) and mandates insurance coverage at regular intervals for coronary artery calcium (CAC) scanning and carotid ultrasound in the state of Texas. A new bill modeled on the Texas legislation is also poised for consideration in Florida in the coming weeks.
.
.
.
Conspicuously absent, he notes, was any kind of expert testimony from the American Heart Association or American College of Cardiology. As previously reported by heartwire, both societies stayed mum on SHAPE, drawing criticism for their silence, although the ACC told heartwire that their Texas ACC chapter "officially supported this piece of legislation and [was] glad to see that it has passed."
For many prominent cardiologists who were involved in SHAPE—most of whom don't hail from Texas—the bill's passing in some ways validates the work of their organization. Several SHAPE members have told heartwire that they believe their aggressive support for population-based screening fills a void that the professional societies have been too slow to move into.
.
.
.
...that the State of Florida is poised to consider Senate Bill 360, inspired by the Texas bill, which would require insurance reimbursement for up to $200 for CAC and CIMT screening. The bill, sponsored by Florida State Senator Mike Fasano, has been submitted and assigned to committee; the Florida legislature begins its sessions tomorrow.
.
.
.
Asked what he thought about a screening bill now being considered in Florida, Khera said, "In some ways, I can understand why: this is the number-one cause of death, and I certainly appreciate that legislators want to do something, because people are dying from heart disease."
=================================
Read the full article here: