We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Editorial |

A Double Take on Serial Measurement of Coronary Artery Calcification

Patrick G. O’Malley, MD, MPH
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2051-2052. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.418.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


Any screening for coronary artery calcification (CAC) for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is still an unproven strategy to improve health outcomes.1 A brief summary of the evidence to date would conclude that CAC, measured with fast computed tomography (CT) protocols, is a valid marker of underlying atherosclerosis, correlates with the burden of coronary atherosclerosis, confers independent added prognostic value to conventional risk prediction, and may be valuable in refining risk prediction in such a way as to alter decision making about medical therapies (although, to my knowledge, there is no randomized trial evidence to prove this).15 However, there is ample reason to be wary of screening for CAC. First, we do not know whether it results in improved outcomes. One randomized trial that tested its motivational effect did not show any improvement on cardiovascular risk factors.6 There is potential harm due to radiation exposure, incidental findings, unnecessary induced interventions (sometimes invasive), insurability, quality-of-life decrements associated with labeling and medicalization of asymptomatic populations, and cost.7,8 One decision analysis using favorable assumptions toward screening coronary CT in low-risk populations indicated that, at best, it is a very expensive endeavor, and, more likely, it is a tragic waste of money.8

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

9 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
An Illustration of Bias and Random Error

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
An Illustration of Bias and Random Error