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: Apr 16 10:55pm | Replies (173)Comment receiving replies
steven - nah, I don't think so!
Here's latest from my testing:
Wednesday Ultrasound for Carotid, Aorta, and Lower Extremities.
- Carotid (internal, external and common) testing looks for flow velocities (all normal) - “There is only minimal plaque at the origins of the bilateral internal carotid ratios. Velocities and ratios do not indicate a clinically significant stenosis” (apparently very common and increases slowly with age).
- Aorta - “Normal abdominal aorta.” (measurements all within normal range).
- Lower extremities - “Normal arterial doppler ultrasound of the bilateral lower extremities” (20 measurements - all normal range).
Thursday's Transthoracic Echocardiogram, and Stress Test with Echocardiogram.
- Transthoracic echocardiogram
- Left ventricle - “Size was normal. Systolic function was normal. Ejection fraction normal. No regional wall motion abnormalities. Wall thickness was mildly increased. Dopper - left ventricular function parameters were normal.
- Aortic valve - The valve was trileaflet. Leaflets exhibited normal thickness and normal cuspal separation. Dopper - there was no stenosis. There was no significant regurgitation.
- Aorta - The root exhibited normal size.
- Mitral valve - Valve structure was normal. There was normal leaflet separation. Doppler - There was no evidence for stenosis. There was trivial regurgitation.
- Left Atrium - the atrium was mildly dilated.
- Right ventricle - the size was normal. Systolic function was normal.
- Pulmonic valve - not well visualized.
- Tricuspid valve - The valve structure was normal. There as normal leaflet separation. Doppler - there was no evidence for tricuspid stenosis. There was trivial regurgitation.
- Right atrium - size was normal.
- Systemic veins IVC - the inferior vena cava was normal in size.
- Pericardium - there was no pericardial effusion. The pericardium was normal in appearance.
- Normal baseline ECG.
- Duration of exercise - 9 min. Functional capacity was normal. Maximal heart rate during stress was 142 (btw - lower at nine minutes than 3 years ago … probably because of Portugal!). Target heart rate was achieved. The heart rate response to stress was normal. There was normal resting blood pressure with an appropriate response to stress, The was no chest pain during stress. The stress test was terminated due to achievement of target heart rate, The stress ECG was normal. There were no stress arrhythmias or condition abnormalities.
- Stress 2D echo results
- Baseline - There were no regional wall motion abnormalities. Left ventricular size was normal. Overall left ventricular function was normal. Left ventricular ejection fraction was in the range of 55-65%.
- Peak stress - There were no regional wall motion abnormalities. There was an appropriate reduction in left ventricular size. There was an appropriate augmentation in LV function. Ejection fraction gt: 70%.
- Other echo findings - there was no evidence for left ventricular dynamic outflow obstruction.
- Impressions - Normal study after maximal exercise.
You've done all this testing already, right?
Replies to "steven - nah, I don't think so! Here's latest from my testing: Wednesday Ultrasound for Carotid,..."
I'm 56 and in great shape, workout every day, but have a 2,854 calcium score from a recent CT Scan. was about to go through the stress test and the echo, but the Cardiologist here in London ordered instead a cardiac stress perfusion MRI to see if the calcium build up meant anything at all. If the heart is getting enough blood in 19 categories, it doesn't matter what your score is, and one MRI can tell you exactly the amount of fluid going through all parts of the heart. Calcium could be 50,000 but so long as your heart is pumping enough blood throughout your body, you are good to do anything you want. Yes, I have a 4.3cm ascending aortic thoracic aneurysm detected on the CT scan, but that was simply confirmed on the MRI. So for me, it is cholesterol meds, low dose BP meds, and that's it. No invasive surgery, no open heart surgery to fix the aneurysm as it's not likely going to burst or dissect any time soon.
That all sounds very positive - congratulations on the encouraging result.
I had the stress/echo as well, which was fine. As I mentioned in my last post, what is unsettling to me is that the statin is apparently raising my blood sugar and inducing diabetes in me. The cardio I see tells me this can happen but that even diabetics with atherosclerosis should be on statins too. But I asked: Is it worth inducing diabetes — yet another risk factor — as part of my treatment to lower the high risk I already have? He doesn’t have a great answer.
Everyone here is dealing with a difficult situation. Personally, what frustrates me is that every time I feel like I’m getting a grip on mine, I find out something new and alarming. To be 43 and in the 100th percentile of artery plaque and now potentially on my way to diabetes — it’s just been very hard to deal with the stats that I know are associated with this.
Connect
Steve,
You need to give it a rest. Not to trivialize your situation at all, but you really blow things out of proportion. Instead of waiting to die you need to live your life. There are many posters on here that truly have dire situations. Your paranoia is palpable. It's unhealthy to respond the way you do to test results. I would recommend that your next medical visit is to a mental health professional to help with your obvious anxiety. When I was first diagnosed with CAC over 1000 several years ago I found that some cognitive therapy and some meds worked wonders in getting my head around the situation.