http://www.thepreparedminds.com/archives/1656 In the field of observation, chance favors the prepared minds. Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:45:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 http://www.thepreparedminds.com/archives/1656/comment-page-1#comment-1847 Ronen Rubinshtein Sun, 09 May 2010 05:39:03 +0000 http://www.thepreparedminds.com/?p=1656#comment-1847 Novel data and one of the first papers to actually validate an indication for calcium score (CS) screening in intermediate risk patients. Moreover, this study demonstrated increased CV event rate (6%) even in patients with zero CS. Thus, the benefit of CS in otherwise high risk asymptomatic patients remains unclear and treatment goals in those patients should be guided by standard guidelines. Novel data and one of the first papers to actually validate an indication for calcium score (CS) screening in intermediate risk patients. Moreover, this study demonstrated increased CV event rate (6%) even in patients with zero CS. Thus, the benefit of CS in otherwise high risk asymptomatic patients remains unclear and treatment goals in those patients should be guided by standard guidelines.

]]> http://www.thepreparedminds.com/archives/1656/comment-page-1#comment-1815 Jacobo Kirsch, MD Fri, 07 May 2010 02:43:40 +0000 http://www.thepreparedminds.com/?p=1656#comment-1815 More robust data from the MESA study. Almost a year ago, when the AIM paper linking CACS with cancer was published, it was re-emphasized how the American Hospital Association had indicated that CACS may be reasonable in selected, intermediate-risk patients (but not recommend for low or high-risk patients). Further supporting this notion, the results from this paper show how the group that benefited the most by being re-classified was those patients at the intermediate-risk group. More robust data from the MESA study. Almost a year ago, when the AIM paper linking CACS with cancer was published, it was re-emphasized how the American Hospital Association had indicated that CACS may be reasonable in selected, intermediate-risk patients (but not recommend for low or high-risk patients). Further supporting this notion, the results from this paper show how the group that benefited the most by being re-classified was those patients at the intermediate-risk group.

]]>