The Paradox of Physical Activity and Coronary Artery Calcification: Implications for Cardiovascular Risk.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of Clinical Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI:10.3390/jcm13216523
Da-Eun Sung, Ki-Chul Sung
{"title":"The Paradox of Physical Activity and Coronary Artery Calcification: Implications for Cardiovascular Risk.","authors":"Da-Eun Sung, Ki-Chul Sung","doi":"10.3390/jcm13216523","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The introduction of CT scans and the subsequent Agatston score in the 1990s drastically improved our ability to detect coronary artery calcification (CAC). This led to its incorporation into cardiovascular risk assessment guidelines set forth by organizations such as the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC). Over time, these guidelines have evolved significantly, reflecting an increasing understanding of CAC. Physical activity has become a key factor in the management of cardiovascular disease. However, the relationship between physical activity and CAC remains complex. Although physical activity is generally beneficial for cardiovascular health, paradoxically, high levels of physical activity have been associated with elevated CAC scores. However, these higher CAC levels may indicate the presence of more stable, calcified plaques that provide protection against plaque rupture. These contradictory findings call for balanced interpretations that acknowledge the cardiovascular benefits of physical activity. This review examines the historical development of clinical guidelines for CAC, the paradoxical relationship between physical activity and CAC, and potential underlying mechanisms. It emphasizes the need for future research to utilize objective measures and consistent methodologies to better understand the relationship between physical activity and CAC.</p>","PeriodicalId":15533,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","volume":"13 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11547064/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13216523","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The introduction of CT scans and the subsequent Agatston score in the 1990s drastically improved our ability to detect coronary artery calcification (CAC). This led to its incorporation into cardiovascular risk assessment guidelines set forth by organizations such as the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC). Over time, these guidelines have evolved significantly, reflecting an increasing understanding of CAC. Physical activity has become a key factor in the management of cardiovascular disease. However, the relationship between physical activity and CAC remains complex. Although physical activity is generally beneficial for cardiovascular health, paradoxically, high levels of physical activity have been associated with elevated CAC scores. However, these higher CAC levels may indicate the presence of more stable, calcified plaques that provide protection against plaque rupture. These contradictory findings call for balanced interpretations that acknowledge the cardiovascular benefits of physical activity. This review examines the historical development of clinical guidelines for CAC, the paradoxical relationship between physical activity and CAC, and potential underlying mechanisms. It emphasizes the need for future research to utilize objective measures and consistent methodologies to better understand the relationship between physical activity and CAC.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
体育锻炼与冠状动脉钙化的悖论:对心血管风险的影响。
20 世纪 90 年代,CT 扫描和随后的阿加斯顿评分的引入大大提高了我们检测冠状动脉钙化(CAC)的能力。因此,美国心脏协会(AHA)和美国心脏病学会(ACC)等组织将其纳入了心血管风险评估指南。随着时间的推移,这些指南已经发生了很大的变化,反映出人们对 CAC 的理解在不断加深。体育锻炼已成为控制心血管疾病的关键因素。然而,体育锻炼与 CAC 之间的关系仍然十分复杂。虽然体育锻炼通常对心血管健康有益,但矛盾的是,高水平的体育锻炼却与 CAC 评分升高有关。然而,这些较高的 CAC 水平可能表明存在着更稳定、更钙化的斑块,从而为防止斑块破裂提供了保护。这些相互矛盾的研究结果要求我们做出平衡的解释,承认体育锻炼对心血管的益处。本综述探讨了 CAC 临床指南的历史发展、体育锻炼与 CAC 之间的矛盾关系以及潜在的内在机制。它强调未来的研究需要利用客观的测量方法和一致的方法来更好地理解体育锻炼与 CAC 之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Journal of Clinical Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
6468
审稿时长
16.32 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383), is an international scientific open access journal, providing a platform for advances in health care/clinical practices, the study of direct observation of patients and general medical research. This multi-disciplinary journal is aimed at a wide audience of medical researchers and healthcare professionals. Unique features of this journal: manuscripts regarding original research and ideas will be particularly welcomed.JCM also accepts reviews, communications, and short notes. There is no limit to publication length: our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Body Surface Area Estimation Formulas in Predicting the Risk of Death in Patients with Heart Failure. Complex Thoracic Aortic Diseases and Surgery: A Quest for the Golden Fleece. Activation of Irrigants in Root Canals with Open Apices: A Narrative Review. Applications of Near Infrared Spectroscopy and Mirror Therapy for Upper Limb Rehabilitation in Post-Stroke Patients: A Brain Plasticity Pilot Study. Intra-Articular Physiological Saline in Temporomandibular Disorders May Be a Treatment, Not a Placebo: A Hypothesis, Systematic Review, and Meta-Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1