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).1- 5 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
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. It will be reviewed by JAMA Internal Medicine editors. You will be notified when your comment has been published. Comments should not exceed 500 words of text and 10 references.
Do not submit personal medical questions or information that could identify a specific patient, questions about a particular case, or general inquiries to an author. Only content that has not been published, posted, or submitted elsewhere should be submitted. By submitting this Comment, you and any coauthors transfer copyright to the journal if your Comment is posted.
* = Required Field
Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest*
Indicate all relevant conflicts of interest of each author below, including all relevant financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including, but not limited to, employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speakers’ bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued. If all authors have none, check "No potential conflicts or relevant financial interests" in the box below. Please also indicate any funding received in support of this work. The information will be posted with your response.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Web of Science® Times Cited: 9
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
An Illustration of Bias and Random Error
All results at
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.