Coronary Artery Calcium Scan Embraced By New AHA/ACC Cholesterol Guidelines: Will Insurance Coverage Follow?

The skeptical cardiologist has been utilizing coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans to help decide which patients are at high risk for heart attacks, and sudden cardiac death for the last decade. As I first described in 2014, (see here) those with higher than expected calcium scores warrant more aggressive treatment, and those with lower scores less aggressive treatment.


Although, as I have discussed previously, CAC is not the “mammography of the heart” it is incredibly helpful in sorting out personalized cardiovascular risk. We use standard risk factors like lipids, smoking, age, gender and diabetes to stratify individuals according to their 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) but many apparent low-risk individuals (often due to inherited familial risk) drop dead from ASCVD and many apparent high-risk individuals don’t need statin therapy.

Previously, major guidelines from organizations like the AHA and the ACC did not recommend CAC testing to guide decision-making in this area. Consequently, CMS and major insurers have not covered CAC testing. When my patients get a CAC scan they pay 125$ out of their pocket.. For the affluent and pro-active this is not an obstacle, however, those struggling financially often balk at the cost.


I was, therefore, very pleased to read that the newly updated AHA/ACC lipid guidelines (full PDF available here) emphasize the use of CAC for decision-making in intermediate-risk patients.


 For those patients aged 40-75 without known ASCVD whose 10-year risk of stroke and heart attack is between 7.5% and 20% (intermediate, see here on using risk estimator) the guidelines recommend “consider measuring CAC”.


If the score is zero, for most consider no statin. If score >100 and/or >75th percentile, statin therapy should be started.


I don’t agree totally with this use of CAC but it is a step forward. For example, how I approach a patient with a CAC of 1-99 depends very much on what percentile the patient is at. A score of 10 in a 40-year-old indicates marked premature build-up of atherosclerotic plaque but in a 70-year-old man it indicates they are at much lower risk than predicted by standard risk factors. For the first individual we would likely recommend statin therapy and very aggressive lifestyle changes whereas for the second man we could discuss taking off statins.
Neil Stone, MD, one of the authors of the guidelines was quoted as saying that the imaging technique is “the best tiebreaker we have now” when the risk-benefit balance is uncertain.

“Most should get a statin, but there are people who say, ‘I’ve got to know more, I want to personalize this decision to the point of knowing whether I really, really need it.’ … There are a number of people who want to be certain about where they stand on the risk continuum and that’s how we want to use it,”

Indeed, I’ve written quite a bit about my approach to helping patients “get off the fence” on whether or not to take a statin drug.


I recommend reading “Are you on the fence about taking a statin drug” to understand the details of using CAC in decision-making and the follow up post on a compromise approach to reducing ASCVD risk.


Deriskingly Yours,

-ACP

N.B. There are two interesting sentences in the guidelines which I’ll need to discuss some other time
-When the CAC score is zero, some investigators favor remeasurement of CAC after 5 to 10 years
CAC scans should be ordered by a clinician who is fully versed in the pros and cons of diagnostic radiology.
In MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), CAC scanning delivered 0.74 to l.27 mSv of radiation, which is similar to the dose of a clinical mammogram 

Here is the full text of the section
-4.4.1.4. Coronary Artery Calcium

Substantial advances in estimation of risk with CAC scoring have been made in the past 5 years. One purpose of CAC scoring is to reclassify risk identification of patients who will potentially benefit from statin therapy. This is especially useful when the clinician and patient are uncertain whether to start a statin. Indeed, the most important recent observation has been the finding that a CAC score of zero indicates a low ASCVD risk for the subsequent 10 years (S4.4.1.4-1–S4.4.1.4-8). Thus, measurement of CAC potentially allows a clinician to withhold statin therapy in patients showing zero CAC. There are exceptions. For example, CAC scores of zero in persistent cigarette smokers, patients with diabetes mellitus, those with a strong family history of ASCVD, and possibly chronic inflammatory conditions such as HIV, may still be associated with substantial 10-year risk (S4.4.1.4-9–S4.4.1.4-12). Nevertheless, a sizable portion of middle-aged and older patients have zero CAC, which may allow withholding of statin therapy in those intermediate risk patients who would otherwise have a high enough risk according to the PCE to receive statin therapy (Figure 2). Most patients with CAC scores ≥100 Agatston units have a 10-year risk of ASCVD≥7.5%, a widely accepted threshold for initiation of statin therapy (S4.4.1.4-13). With increasing age, 10- year risk accompanying CAC scores of 1 to 99 rises, usually crossing the 7.5% threshold in later middle age (S4.4.1.4-13). When the CAC score is zero, some investigators favor remeasurement of CAC after 5 to 10 years (S4.4.1.4-14–S4.4.1.4-16). CAC measurement has no utility in patients already treated with statins. Statins are associated with slower progression of overall coronary atherosclerosis volume and reduction of high-risk plaque features, yet statins increase the CAC score (S4.4.1.4-17). A prospective randomized study of CAC scoring showed improved risk factor modification without an increase in downstream medical testing or cost (S4.4.1.4-18). In MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), CAC scanning delivered 0.74 to l.27 mSv of radiation, which is similar to the dose of a clinical mammogram (S4.4.1.4- 19). CAC scans should be ordered by a clinician who is fully versed in the pros and cons of diagnostic radiology.
Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on November 11, 2018
from Grundy SM, et al.
2018 Cholesterol Clinical Practice Guidelines

Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook

6 thoughts on “Coronary Artery Calcium Scan Embraced By New AHA/ACC Cholesterol Guidelines: Will Insurance Coverage Follow?”

  1. What a great step forward for heart calcium scoring Dr P. It’s always been a great tool that can re-classify intermediate-risk (middle-risk) people. Glad to see these recommendations in the AHA 2018 guidelines. Thanks for the summary. Sharing on SM.
    Recent paper from JD Mitchell, et al published ahead of the AHA18 guidelines again showing the power of CAC. I spoke with the author about the methods. Study is retrospective with impressive findings. “In the 10-year NNT analysis, there was no significant effect of statins among patients without any CAC=0. Patients with a CAC of 1 to 100 had a trend toward benefit (NNT ¼ 100; p ¼ 0.095), whereas patients
    with a CAC >100 derived significant benefit with a NNT of 12 (p < 0.0001)" inhttp://www.onlinejacc.org/content/early/2018/10/31/j.jacc.2018.09.051

    Reply
  2. Great info as always. I had a near perfect lipid profile but self requested CAC scan just verify how healthy I was. Surprise! CAC score of 725. Now on Crestor and making other changes. What are your views regarding information that was in the July 2018 issue of The Lancet regarding low dose aspirin and dosing by weight? It suggested that low dose aspirin (less than 100mg/day) was not as effective for persons weighing over 70kg. I’m a 63 year old male who weighs 80kg and wondering what a protective dose might be?

    Reply
    • I had not seen the Lancet article. It’s fascinating. Seems plausible that we should be dosing aspirin by weight.
      The editorial mentions that “This hypothesis is supported by the observation that the interaction between weight and risk of cardiovascular events was accentuated with enteric-coated aspirin, which has about 40% lower systemic bioavailability than does non-coated aspirin.”
      I have complained about the absence of non enteric-coated low dose aspirin (https://theskepticalcardiologist.com/2018/01/28/which-kind-of-baby-aspirin-should-i-take-to-prevent-heart-attack-chewable-versus-enteric-coated-versus-regular/) and this new evidence suggests that those patients >70 kg should definitely not take enteric coated low dose aspirin.
      Interestingly, it is always my smaller, usually female patients who complain most about bruising from low dose aspirin.
      I will ponder this further and may start advising my >70 kg patients to take higher dose aspirin in the future.

      Reply

Please leave your comments. The skeptical cardiologist loves feedback. He reads all and replies to all that warrant a reply.

%d bloggers like this: