Here is my Coronary Calcium Score Test Results. Price was $99, took 5 minutes for the test

[Cherokee]

I scored a 12

Although that sounds low, I'm only in the upper 60 percentile for my age. If definitely could be worse.

Anyone care to comment? Below is the actual test results. I had them back within 1 hour after the test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AGATSTON CORONARY ARTERY CALCIUM REPORT



EXAM: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) score

INDICATION: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk

stratification.



TECHNIQUE: Using a GE Revolution CT scanner, a standard prospective

cardiac-gated CAC scoring protocol was used for image acquisition.

The CAC was interpreted using the Agatston score. An

age/sex/race-adjusted score percentile was derived by comparison of

this score with Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)

reference population. The DLP was 116.35 mGy-cm.



TECHNICAL QUALITY: good



FINDINGS:



The total Agatston CAC score is 12. CAC is present in the left

anterior descending (LAD) and left circumflex (LCx) .



Vessel-level Agatston scoring: LM: 0 LAD: 11 LCx: 1 RCA: 0



PERICARDIUM: No pericardial thickening or effusion.



GREAT VESSELS: Normal caliber



EXTRA-CORONARY CALCIFICATION: None.



OTHER FINDINGS: Left lower lobe calcified micronodules are benign.



IMPRESSION

1. The Agatston CAC score of 12 is at the 61st percentile for age,

gender, and ethnicity.

2. CAC is present in the left anterior descending (LAD) and left

circumflex (LCx) .

3. Extra-coronary calcification: None

4. No additional significant findings within the imaged portion of

the chest.



CAC-DRS Category [A1/N2]

Agatston (A) / Number of vessels (N)



Management Recommendation

----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------

CAC Score Risk



Treatment Recommendation

CAC-DRS 0 0 very low



statin generally not recommended*

CAC-DRS 1 1-99 mildly increased



moderate intensity statin

CAC-DRS 2 100-299 moderately increased

moderate to high intensity statin + ASA 81 mg

CAC-DRS 3 >300 moderately to severely increased

high intensity statin + ASA 81 mg

______________________________________________________________________

__________________

* excluding familial hypercholesterolemia





REFERENCES:

https://www.journalofcardiovascularct.com/article/S1934-5925(18)30058-

3/pdf

Calcium Calculator

www.mesa-nhlbi.org

https://www.mesa-nhlbi.org/MESACHDRisk/MesaRiskScore/RiskScore.aspx

When I plugged this data into the calculator in the link, it said:

The estimated 10-year risk of a CHD event for a person with this risk factor profile including coronary calcium is 4.2%. The estimated 10-year risk of a CHD event for a person with this risk factor profile if we did not factor in their coronary calcium score would be 4.3%.

 

[Gbro]

neat-O

 

[PeterBond]

The estimated 10-year risk of a CHD event for a person with this risk factor profile including coronary calcium is 4.2%. The estimated 10-year risk of a CHD event for a person with this risk factor profile if we did not factor in their coronary calcium score would be 4.3%.

Totally worth the money and radiation exposure.

 

[MindlessWork]

I should look into this test myself and thanks for the info OP. Sounds like you are low risk.

 

[Mcflyfast]

I just got mine done last month and scored a 0. My father is about the same age and score a 7.8. My primary also mention that as we age, it's very rare to have a 0. Buy the goal is to have it as low as possible for longevity.

Hope all is well.

 

[Cherokee]

I would like to comment I think many people, even some Dr's oversimplify the Score. It's just one factor, and depending upon your other risk factors, determines how much of a weight the score should be given.

It's interesting plugging different Cholesterol levels and other factors into these online calculators, you will see some factors affect your risks a lot more than other risks. And none of these calculators take into consideration people using steroids.

Here is a good page that talks about how to interpret that Calcium score for different groups / risk factors.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.113.002598

 

[Theworm]

Totally worth the money and radiation exposure.

Is this sarcasm? I hear it’s a ton of radiation and it doesn’t really change management per say

 

[Pantera]

@Cherokee @Mcflyfast

What are your AAS histories? If BnC, for how long? What do you cruise at? etc

 

[Cherokee]

Is this sarcasm? I hear it’s a ton of radiation and it doesn’t really change management per say

Healthcare providers sometimes use the calcium score to help decide whether to recommend treatment with a statin. With this test a middle of the road group who would normally get statins, may not need them if their Calcium score is low.

If you score high, they might treat you more aggresively

 

[Cherokee]

@Cherokee @Mcflyfast

What are your AAS histories? If BnC, for how long? What do you cruise at? etc

Just started. Very overweight for a few years. Ate Kentucky friend chicken every day for probably 15 years. 5'10 285lbs to 320.. Very poor diet. Never eat vegetables. Who said fat people can't be semi healthy?

It seems these Calcium numbers as the one guy stated, can change a lot with age.

 

[Theworm]

Healthcare providers sometimes use the calcium score to help decide whether to recommend treatment with a statin. With this test a middle of the road group who would normally get statins, may not need them if their Calcium score is low.

If you score high, they might treat you more aggresively

I saw two cardiologist, one said what you said the other said it’s irrelevant one should treat as if risk factors already, Ie goal no matter what is to get ldl as low as possible

 

[PeterBond]

Is this sarcasm? I hear it’s a ton of radiation and it doesn’t really change management per say

Yes. It practically didn't change his 10-year risk estimate.

Measuring it has its place for select groups of patients, but is useless in many other cases. I have a tiny feeling OP doesn't match the description of the select groups for which it might alter cardiovascular management.

 

[Xenophon178]

Without going in to my background, let’s say I’m proficient in cardiology. That “LAD” refers to the “Left Amterior Descending” artery. This artery is referred, in common parlance, as “The Widowmaker”. Keep an eye on it. Lower occlusion scores do mot represent less to worry about always. Actually, an LAD 50% blocked is of much greater concern for the “sudden heart attack”. I’ll spare you the lecture as to why, unless asked.

remember that any test is a “snapshot”. You should run another one after a while and see how they change. “The hallmark of disease is change over time”.

Lastly, kudos for getting this done and being a more responsible gym bro. I hope this spreads.

 

[Cherokee]

I saw two cardiologist, one said what you said the other said it’s irrelevant one should treat as if risk factors already, Ie goal no matter what is to get ldl as low as possible

I ran across a study that said that also. I can't help but wonder if the drug companies are pushing the studies supporting using the drugs.

Yes. It practically didn't change his 10-year risk estimate.

Measuring it has its place for select groups of patients, but is useless in many other cases. I have a tiny feeling OP doesn't match the description of the select groups for which it might alter cardiovascular management.

My insurance company uses the Pooled Cohort Equation to determine if they would pay for that test. And you are right, I did not meet the 5 percent or greater on the score, to get the insurance company to pay for it. So I paid for it myself.

If I would have lied and said I was a smoker, I would have been able to get the test for free.

A lot of Dr's in my area did not have the Order in their computer to order that test, and claimed they could not even order it. One Dr drew it up by hand I assume is how she did it.

 

[malfeasance]

Totally worth the money and radiation exposure.

Any recommendations on what we should be doing instead?

 

[Type-IIx]

Any recommendations on what we should be doing instead?

I believe Peter Bond recommends this test annually for people that actually use androgens (even a cycle or two yearly).

 

[Cherokee]

I believe Peter Bond recommends this test annually for people that actually use androgens (even a cycle or two yearly).

Did you see his post above?

 

[Cherokee]

Question - Is the presence of coronary artery disease, as indicated by coronary artery calcium (CAC), associated with the development of clinical coronary heart disease before age 60 years?

Finding - In the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study, black and white Americans of both sexes aged 32 to 46 years who had any CAC (Agatston score >0) as seen on computed tomographic scan had an elevated risk of clinical coronary heart disease during 12.5 years of follow-up. Individuals with a CAC score of 100 or more had an incidence density of 22.4 deaths per 100 people observed for 12.5 years.

Meaning - Any CAC in early adult life, even in those with very low scores, indicates significant risk of having and possibly dying of a myocardial infarction during the next decade beyond standard risk factors and identifies an individual at particularly elevated risk for coronary heart disease for whom aggressive prevention is likely warranted.

Importance - Coronary artery calcium (CAC) is associated with coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, prognostic data on CAC are limited in younger adults.


Carr JJ, Jacobs DR, Terry JG, Shay CM, Sidney S, Liu K, Schreiner PJ, Lewis CE, Shikany JM, Reis JP, Goff DC. Association of Coronary Artery Calcium in Adults Aged 32 to 46 Years With Incident Coronary Heart Disease and Death. JAMA Cardiol. Published online February 08, 2017. Coronary Artery Calcium and Incident Coronary Heart Disease and Death

Objective - To determine if CAC in adults aged 32 to 46 years is associated with incident clinical CHD, CVD, and all-cause mortality during 12.5 years of follow-up.

Design, Setting, and Participants - The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study is a prospective community-based study that recruited 5115 black and white participants aged 18 to 30 years from March 25, 1985, to June 7, 1986. The cohort has been under surveillance for 30 years, with CAC measured 15 (n = 3043), 20 (n = 3141), and 25 (n = 3189) years after recruitment. The mean follow-up period for incident events was 12.5 years, from the year 15 computed tomographic scan through August 31, 2014.

Main Outcomes and Measures - Incident CHD included fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome without myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, or CHD death. Incident CVD included CHD, stroke, heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease. Death included all causes. The probability of developing CAC by age 32 to 56 years was estimated using clinical risk factors measured 7 years apart between ages 18 and 38 years.

Results - At year 15 of the study among 3043 participants (mean [SD] age, 40.3 [3.6] years; 1383 men and 1660 women), 309 individuals (10.2%) had CAC, with a geometric mean Agatston score of 21.6 (interquartile range, 17.3-26.8). Participants were followed up for 12.5 years, with 57 incident CHD events and 108 incident CVD events observed. After adjusting for demographics, risk factors, and treatments, those with any CAC experienced a 5-fold increase in CHD events (hazard ratio

---

, 5.0; 95% CI, 2.8-8.7) and 3-fold increase in CVD events (HR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.7). Within CAC score strata of 1-19, 20-99, and 100 or more, the HRs for CHD were 2.6 (95% CI, 1.0-5.7), 5.8 (95% CI, 2.6-12.1), and 9.8 (95% CI, 4.5-20.5), respectively. A CAC score of 100 or more had an incidence of 22.4 deaths per 100 participants (HR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.5-10.0); of the 13 deaths in participants with a CAC score of 100 or more, 10 were adjudicated as CHD events. Risk factors for CVD in early adult life identified those above the median risk for developing CAC and, if applied, in a selective CAC screening strategy could reduce the number of people screened for CAC by 50% and the number imaged needed to find 1 person with CAC from 3.5 to 2.2.

Conclusions and Relevance - The presence of CAC among individuals aged between 32 and 46 years was associated with increased risk of fatal and nonfatal CHD during 12.5 years of follow-up. A CAC score of 100 or more was associated with early death. Adults younger than 50 years with any CAC, even with very low scores, identified on a computed tomographic scan are at elevated risk of clinical CHD, CVD, and death. Selective use of screening for CAC might be considered in individuals with risk factors in early adulthood to inform discussions about primary prevention.

 

[Type-IIx]

Did you see his post above?

Yes. That was a rather intelligent way of Dr. Bond indicating that he suspects you're here to either promote your safe AAS use practices (i.e., you are Victor Black) or to build rapport with the community for some motive aside from looking for actual help with AAS.

 

[Cherokee]

Yes. That was a rather intelligent way of Dr. Bond indicating that he suspects you're here to either promote your safe AAS use practices (i.e., you are Victor Black) or to build rapport with the community for some motive aside from looking for actual help with AAS.

Not being sarcastic, but... that assumes you are a mind reader.