Yes, I got the results. It’s an interesting report - a visual rendering of each artery showing where there is plaque, how much there is, and how calcified it is. They also measure the plaque volume overall and by category- calcified, non-calcified, and low density non calcified.

My total volume is 245 mm3 — 2/3 of it (162 mm) is calcified and the other 1/3 is non-calcified. It says there is 0 low density non-calcified. My hope is that this represents good news in that it’s better to have calcified than non-calcified and everything I’ve seen suggests low-density non-calcified is even worse. But I have scheduled a consultation with Matthew Budoff at UCLA, who is affiliated with Cleerly and whose name is all over the various CAC research out there. I think he’s probably the best person I could turn to for interpretation of the report. My goal is also to see if he has a proposed strategy for using this as a benchmark and do periodic re-scans to measure progress. This is still obviously a very new technology, so I’ll also ask for a candid assessment of what kind of limits there are on interpreting it. Still, it was useful for me to see this report; better than just having a cardiologist describe in broad terms the CT-angiogram report.

In terms of how to get it done, yes, you just need to get a CT-angiogram (I think CTA and CCTA are the same). Then you need to have it sent to Cleerly for analysis. At least in NY, where I am, this did require a doctor to put the request in both for the scan and to send it to Cleerly. I don’t know if it’s different in other states though.