{"id":1494,"date":"2010-04-07T16:05:37","date_gmt":"2010-04-07T20:05:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/%e2%80%a2-cimt-in-risk-assessment%e2%80%a2-survival-after-cabg-%e2%80%94-its-not-race-or-sex-its-being-poor\/"},"modified":"2011-07-19T17:45:00","modified_gmt":"2011-07-19T21:45:00","slug":"%e2%80%a2-cimt-in-risk-assessment%e2%80%a2-survival-after-cabg-%e2%80%94-its-not-race-or-sex-its-being-poor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/2010\/04\/07\/%e2%80%a2-cimt-in-risk-assessment%e2%80%a2-survival-after-cabg-%e2%80%94-its-not-race-or-sex-its-being-poor\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2022 CIMT in Risk Assessment<br \/>\u2022 Survival After CABG \u2014 It\u2019s Not Race or Sex, It\u2019s Being Poor"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>CIMT in Risk Assessment:<\/strong> When added to traditional risk factors, CIMT (carotid intima-media thickness) and the presence or absence of plaque improve risk prediction, according to <a href=\"http:\/\/content.onlinejacc.org\/cgi\/content\/abstract\/55\/15\/1600\">a paper from the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) Study in the <em>Journal of the American College of Cardiology<\/em><\/a><em>.<\/em> Vijay Nambi and colleagues report that they were able to reclassify nearly a quarter of more than 13,000 subjects with the added information from CIMT and plaque. The authors concluded that &#8220;ultrasound-based risk stratification strategies should be tested in clinical trials to evaluate whether improved prevention of cardiovascular events is possible.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/content.onlinejacc.org\/cgi\/content\/full\/55\/15\/1608\">an accompanying editorial comment,<\/a> James Stein and Heather Johnson write that the study &#8220;closes the discussion about the incremental value of carotid ultrasound for CHD risk prediction in patients at intermediate risk, thus opening the door for outcomes research studies that are required to determine if atherosclerosis imaging truly is as helpful as its proponents believe.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Survival After CABG&nbsp;\u2014 It&#8217;s Not Race or Sex, It&#8217;s Being Poor:<\/strong> Socioeconomic position (SEP) is far more important than race or sex in affecting long-term survival after CABG, according to <a href=\"http:\/\/circoutcomes.ahajournals.org\/cgi\/content\/abstract\/CIRCOUTCOMES.109.880377v1\">a new report in <em>Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes<\/em><\/a>. Colleen Koch and colleagues studied 23,330 CABG patients and found that lower SEP was associated with a worse outcome. Race and sex were no longer significant factors after adjustment for SEP.&nbsp; &#8220;We were surprised that consistently and pervasively, through every way of looking at the data, it turns out this isn\u2019t about skin color or gender. It\u2019s about being poor,\u201d said Koch, in a <a href=\"http:\/\/americanheart.mediaroom.com\/index.php?s=43&amp;item=1005\">press release<\/a> issued by the American Heart Association.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>CIMT in Risk Assessment: When added to traditional risk factors, CIMT (carotid intima-media thickness) and the presence or absence of plaque improve risk prediction, according to a paper from the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) Study in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Vijay Nambi and colleagues report that they were able to [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":196,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1494","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1494","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/196"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1494"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1494\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1494"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1494"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1494"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}