Background The association of physical activity with the development and progression of coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores has not been studied. This study aimed to evaluate the prospective association between physical activity and CAC scores in apparently healthy adults.
Methods Prospective cohort study of men and women free of overt cardiovascular disease who underwent comprehensive health screening examinations between 1 March 2011 and 31 December 2017. Baseline physical activity was measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form (IPAQ-SF) and categorised into three groups (inactive, moderately active and health-enhancing physically active (HEPA)). The primary outcome was the difference in the 5-year change in CAC scores by physical activity category at baseline.
Results We analysed 25 485 participants with at least two CAC score measurements. The proportions of participants who were inactive, moderately active and HEPA were 46.8%, 38.0% and 15.2%, respectively. The estimated adjusted average baseline CAC scores (95% confidence intervals) in participants who were inactive, moderately active and HEPA were 9.45 (8.76, 10.14), 10.20 (9.40, 11.00) and 12.04 (10.81, 13.26). Compared with participants who were inactive, the estimated adjusted 5-year average increases in CAC in moderately active and HEPA participants were 3.20 (0.72, 5.69) and 8.16 (4.80, 11.53). Higher physical activity was association with faster progression of CAC scores both in participants with CAC=0 at baseline and in those with prevalent CAC.
Conclusion We found a positive, graded association between physical activity and the prevalence and the progression of CAC, regardless of baseline CAC scores.
- risk factors
- coronary artery disease
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
K-CS and YSH contributed equally.
Contributors KS contributed to the study conception and design. YSH drafted the original manuscript. JL, SL, YC, SR, DZ and JC critically revised the manuscript. EG and JACL contributed to the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of the study data.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.