Redefining cardiovascular risk evaluation: employing the CaRi-Heart validated FAI-score in patients screened with SCORE2 and CAD-RADS 2.0 techniques

Abstract Background Cardiac computed tomography (CCT) has confirmed the fat attenuation index (FAI) as a trustworthy marker for coronary inflammation, notably in relation to plaque vulnerability and progression. The systematic coronary risk evaluation 2 (SCORE2) is a valuable instrument for forecasting the 10-year likelihood of initial cardiovascular disease (CVD) occurrence. This study aims to determine risk re-categorization using CaRi-Heart in comparison to SCORE2 and the coronary artery disease-reporting and data system (CAD-RADS 1.0/2.0). Methods We enrolled patients (INTEL-FAT study) undergoing CCT, who were aged 40-69 years and had no previous history of CVD or diabetes. SCORE2 classified very-high-risk regions as follows: low-moderate risk as <2.5% (<50 years) and <5% (50-69 years), high risk as 2.5 to <7.5% (<50 years) and 5 to <10% (50-69 years), and very-high risk as ≥7.5% (<50 years) and ≥10% (50-69 years). The CaRi-Heart risk assessment categorized low risk as FAI-score ≤75th percentile for the LAD or RCA and <95th percentile for the LCX; medium risk as falling between the 76th and 89th percentiles for LAD/RCA and ≥95th percentile for LCX; and high risk as ≥90th percentile for LAD/RCA. Results 203 patients were included, with a mean age of 58.7 ± 6.78; 143 (70.44%) were male. CaRi-Heart assessment redefined 71.13% (69/97) of individuals from high to low SCORE2 risk, and 40.0% (8/30) from low-moderate to high SCORE2 risk. The weighted Cohen's kappa analysis revealed minimal concordance between SCORE2 and CaRi-Heart (k=-0.043). 19.71% of patients categorized as CAD-RADS 1 in CCT were reassigned to high risk after CaRi-Heart evaluation, and 26.66% of those classified as CAD-RADS 4 were downgraded to low risk. Furthermore, of the CAD-RADS 1 P1/P2 group, 15.38% and of the P3/P4 group, 66.66% were upgraded to high risk. Conversely, 45.45% of CAD-RADS 4 P1/P2 and 15.78% of P3/P4 were reassigned to low CaRi-Heart risk. The Cohen's kappa analysis comparing CAD-RADS 1.0 and 2.0 with CaRi-Heart risk revealed a low concordance (k=0.067 and k=0.014). In comparing SCORE2 risk categories to CAD-RADS classifications, a significant association was found for low-moderate SCORE2 with CAD-RADS 2 (diagnostic odds ratio [DOR] of 11.26; 95% CI: 4.37-29.00; p<0.001), and for high SCORE2 with CAD-RADS 4 (DOR: 0.085; 95% CI: 0.036-0.20; p<0.001), indicating a strong predictive value of the SCORE2 system for certain CAD-RADS classifications. Conclusions The CaRi-Heart method significantly alters risk classifications in comparison to the SCORE2 risk assessment models or the anatomical CAD-RADS 1.0 and 2.0 diagnostic instruments. These results indicate the importance of integrating established scoring systems with additional markers, such as the FAI-score. This integration offers critical understanding into the severity and future course of CAD, assisting in risk stratification and informing therapeutic choices.SCORE2, CAD-RADS and CaRi-Heart risk.Interpretation of the CaRi-Heart® risk.