Connect
← Return to Crazy high calcium score of 3,000+
Discussion
Crazy high calcium score of 3,000+
Heart & Blood Health | Last Active: 1 day ago | Replies (71)Comment receiving replies
@jlharsh hello and thank you! I'm. A little confused so maybe you can help clarify. So you're saying the group of doctors didn't know where the heart attacks started but think they start where the blockages of hard calcium are the biggest? And then you mentioned an initial thought and what you believe to be the biggest "danger zone, " which seem to be where the smaller blockages are. May I ask what that based on? I hear what you're saying about wanting to solidify the mushy plaque and reduce inflammation. That makes sense to me. I'm taking a statin and changed my diet drastically since the calcium score, and moving around/walking more. I think that's all I can do right now. My angio was denied by the insurance company so the doctors are working on resubmitting and hoping it gets through this time. I think I think my words were I feel like I didn't have any life force - not that I wanted to improve my quality of life - although, I think they go hand in hand. What I meant by that is I don't have a lot of energy (sometimes can barely function) and now that I know I have a very high calcium score it feels as though a blockage might be the culprit in not getting the life force that I need through my body - ie blood flow. Thanks again for reaching out. I'm basically just scared and like many of the others here feel like a walking time bomb. It's surreal and hard not to think about.
Replies to "@jlharsh hello and thank you! I'm. A little confused so maybe you can help clarify. So..."
Connect
I am so, so sorry you are scared, @sdbonniea123.
The exercise these cardiologists went through had the goal of figuring out if they could guess where heart attacks would happen. The hypothesis they started with was that problems start at the place where the blockages are the greatest, where the most calcification, or hard plaque is located. So, following this upfront guess, you would think an 80% blockage would cause more problems than say, a 35% blockage. This is NOT what they found.
I found this explanation:
“ Unfortunately, as we age, plaque accumulates in our arteries. This starts as soft, cholesterol-laden plaque that eventually calcifies and hardens. Even though the process effectively begins at birth, most people do not have clinically significant blockages in their arteries until they are well into middle age.
Interestingly, and somewhat counterintuitively, calcified plaque is probably the less dangerous of the two. When a heart attack happens it is due to the sudden rupture of a soft, unstable plaque that might be obstructing only 10 or 20 per cent of the artery. Longstanding, calcified 90-per-cent blockages don’t cause heart attacks. They may cause angina — chest pain on exertion — but a stable plaque won’t suddenly rupture and provoke a myocardial infarction.”
I don’t remember you saying you are having angina symptoms, or chest pain. I am guessing that when your cardiologist told you they are more concerned about your cholesterol than your 400 calcium score, they are saying the concern is your softer plaque, and that is something you can do something about. I am not a medical person, just someone on this same path as you.
Why did you have your initial calcium testing done, were you having symptoms? Did your cardiologist do bloodwork?