Connect
← Return to Extremely high calcium score at 42 - is there any positive here??
Discussion
Extremely high calcium score at 42 - is there any positive here??
Heart & Blood Health | Last Active: Jun 25 3:31pm | Replies (193)Comment receiving replies
All good news - did they provide METs number or Duke scoring number for the stress test component? Yours would likely be off the charts, but they are scaled based on age.
Here's what my non-echo stress test read:
"Resting EKG - normal sinus rhythm. Resting heart 89, resting blood 132/78, exercise 9 minutes. Leg fatigue for stopping. Patient denied chest pain or shortness of breath. METS 10.3, peak 159 beats = 102% max. Peak BP 195/90. Conclusions: Negative treadmill stress for inducible ischemia to achieve workload. Achieved 10.3METS. Placing patient good for functional capacity for age. Duke treadmill score of 9, placing patient at low 5 year cardio mortality risk."
Remember - two hips, very active, walk but don't run.
I believe this is why the cardiologist said - meh.
Prior to ST this was panel:
Trigs - 141
Total Cholesterol - 122
HDL - 41
LDL - 57
Six months later after statins and Vascepa:
Trigs - 56
Total Cholesterol - 115
HDL - 48
LDL - 47
Two years later:
Trigs - 49
Total Cholesterol - 106
HDL - 46
LDL - 47
Replies to "All good news - did they provide METs number or Duke scoring number for the stress..."
I wish there were an arbitrage market for health stuff. I'd be happy to trade you total cholesterol, but I'd keep my HDL and my triglycerides are fine. (I can't take statins.)
I got out of shape during lockdown and am having a problem getting motivated to get back on treadmill, which is the unboring option as I take small DVD player and movies to watch.
Good keep the trigs low
Connect
It doesn't look like I have any data from the stress test in my patient portal. I just did the tread for about 12-15 mins at increasing speeds and he said, "Well, you passed the stress test easily," and then we moved on. I'll see if I can track down any numbers.
Interesting to see your numbers. Looks to me like you did have a clear problem area in your bloodwork -- high triglycerides -- that has been well-addressed with the statin. Obviously, your total and LDL cholesterol was already in a really good place.
This is what I keep getting at about the strangeness of my situation: There was nothing in my bloodwork that suggested a potential problem. All I've had is slightly (~100-110) elevated LDL cholesterol, with normal triglycerides, high HDL, low lipoprotein (a), low hsCRP. So no doc I'd previously done bloodwork with ever even suggested a calcium scan -- and I can see why now: my lipid profile put me at <1% risk in the traditional calculators. So while I'm glad to get the LDL down under 70, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that it's what was driving this in the first place. I see people here sharing LDL levels that are near or above 200. I could see how that could lead to significant plaque accumulation. But I've never had anything like that. I just would really like to understand the root cause of this, because it doesn't seem to mesh with how these high calcium scores are typically explained.