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?