Back to updates

Education

Subclinical Coronary Atherosclerosis and Myocardial Infarction Risk: Evidence From a Danish CT Cohort

A Danish population cohort found less subclinical coronary atherosclerosis in women, while obstructive disease on CT was associated with higher myocardial infarction risk in both women and men.

Prepared by
Iraq Cardiology Editorial Team
Source authors
Andreas Fuchs Larsen et al.
Reading time
4 min
Iraq Cardiology clinical editorial visual for a source-attributed publication.
© Iraq Cardiology Community 2026. Original editorial illustration; conceptual medical visual only, not diagnostic guidance.

Quick summary

The essential point, in one sentence.

Reading companion

A professional question, bounded to this record.

Answers use this update and its recorded sources only; it does not provide individual treatment advice.

Larsen and colleagues studied 10,003 asymptomatic Danish adults older than 40 years who underwent coronary CT angiography. Women had less subclinical coronary atherosclerosis than men across age groups and risk-factor profiles. During a median six years of follow-up, obstructive subclinical disease was associated with a higher risk of myocardial infarction in both sexes.

The adjusted association with myocardial infarction was estimated at 4.1 in women and 12 in men for obstructive versus no subclinical coronary atherosclerosis. However, the study did not demonstrate a statistically significant sex interaction for the myocardial-infarction association. The message is therefore not that obstructive disease is benign in women, but that plaque burden and risk interpretation may require sex-aware context.

This is an observational cohort study in a Danish population. It cannot establish causation, determine the best screening strategy, or directly dictate testing pathways in Iraq or elsewhere. Coronary CT use should follow symptoms, pre-test probability, guideline recommendations, local expertise, and shared clinical judgement.

Editorial note: this is a professional educational summary, not a recommendation for indiscriminate coronary CT screening.

Professional discussion starter

Turn reading into a balanced conversation.

Prompts for professional reflection—not individual treatment advice.

  1. 1Which element of the source most changes how your team would frame Subclinical Coronary Atherosclerosis and Myocardial Infarction Risk: Evidence From a Danish CT Cohort?
  2. 2Which limitation or context should be made explicit before discussing application?
  3. 3What question is worth taking to a journal club or multidisciplinary meeting?

Continue reading

Related updates