Table 4.
Comparison of risk factors and CACS status of the study population
| Risk factor | CACS | Pearson’s χ2 significance (two-sided) | ||||
| Zero (score=0) n (%) |
Minimal (0<score≤10) n (%) |
Mild (10<score≤100) n (%) |
Moderate (100<score≤400) n (%) |
Excessive (score >400) n (%) |
||
| Age | ||||||
| <45 | 226 (88) | 6 (2) | 12 (5) | 11 (4) | 2 (1) | <0.0001 |
| ≥45 | 308 (47) | 64 (10) | 115 (18) | 107 (16) | 57 (9) | |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 391 (56) | 58 (8) | 95 (14) | 97 (14) | 52 (8) | 0.02 |
| Female | 145 (66) | 12 (5) | 33 (15) | 21(10) | 8 (4) | |
| Diabetes | ||||||
| Yes | 101 (43) | 22 (10) | 44 (19) | 42 (18) | 23 (10) | <0.0001 |
| No | 429 (63) | 47 (7) | 86 (13) | 75 (11) | 38 (6) | |
| Hypertension | ||||||
| Yes | 245 (52) | 39 (8) | 75 (16) | 74 (16) | 37 (8) | 0.012 |
| No | 286 (65) | 30 (7) | 55 (13) | 43 (10) | 24 (5) | |
| Dyslipidaemia | ||||||
| Yes | 237 (56) | 33 (8) | 73 (17) | 50 (12) | 31 (7) | 0.465 |
| No | 16 (44) | 2 (6) | 7 (19) | 6 (17) | 5 (14) | |
| Smoking | ||||||
| Yes | 126 (55) | 16 (7) | 30 (13) | 36 (16) | 20 (9) | 0.486 |
| No | 404 (59) | 53 (8) | 100 (15) | 81 (12) | 41 (6) | |
| Family history | ||||||
| Yes | 277 (57) | 35 (7) | 73 (15) | 67 (14) | 34 (7) | 0.526 |
| No | 247 (60) | 34 (8) | 57 (14) | 50 (12) | 27 (6) | |
χ2 was applied.
P<0.05 was considered significant.
Values in bold show significant association
CACS, coronary artery calcium score.