@ewcm20 The general policy across the field is that a mechanical intervention like a stent or bypass procedure is undertaken when the obstruction nears 90%. That seems 'faint-of-heart' to me, like the risks of the intervention are about equal to just letting the heart run up to and beyond 90% obstruction/restriction. Or is it that the insurance industry won't fund until the 90% mark is reached with the hope that the patient will infarct or spontaneously kick the bucket before they incur the liability of the reimbursement/payment? Yes, call me cynical if you must. It 's apt.

@ewcm20
I would definitely take those statins. Perhaps another one, different than the one you were taking? You may have hypercholesterolemia (familial), but if you have blockages, then you need the help of statins. Better to put up with a few side effects from statins than to wait for a heart attack. I think the side effects also lessen after awhile as your body adjusts to them.
Best wishes!

@ewcm20 I have been reading all the helpful responses just now and realize that one potentially important factor hasn't been mentioned, least of all by me. That is that inflammation, the chronic systemic kind, can exacerbate calcium and plaque deposition, especially if the endothelial linings and lumen of the arteries are affected. The typical/good kind of deposition happens between the endothelium and the lumen. It is helped by inflammation. You might wish to ask your PCP or cardiologist for a CRP (c-reactive protein) test. If it turns out that it's somewhat elevated, or substantially so, maybe you and he/she could talk about tackling that precursor first before resorting to a statin...which you'd rather not take, thanks very much.