The CT scanner is spinning, a person's heart is beating. It least in 2017, it would seem that some manufacturers of CT scanners (two out of the four tested) were creating errors of up to 50% at only 75 bpm. There was no testing past that point (errors at even higher rates). For me, my heart was readily up at 110-120 BPM, because like you, I hate being in a tube! hee hee hee
There is a body of math (Fourier) that can compensate for some motion blur, but it is not infinite. It sure would be nice of the FDA to make the manufactures certify that their CT scanners are artifact free up to a certain heart rate, and currently that is not the case.
Back in the day, when I designed, built and installed a bi-axial cardiac visualization system to image baboon hearts in motion, it required filming (yes, real film) at 400 frames per SECOND to create motion free filming of the high speed fluoroscopes used in each axis. Even then, the baboon hearts had metal markers attached to the surface of the heart to have exact registration for the motion study of heart walls.
We have much cooler stuff available now to image hearts, but from my experience I have an intuitive thought about how heart rate affects imaging. And thanks to this forum has revealed, there sure appear to be a lot of folks with monster heart scores and more healthier hearts than not. I hope I am one of them!
In any regard, I will have to be checked out by thorough imaging, and likely intra vascular. My guess is that there will be a "project" to attend to, but I am doubtful that it will be to the extent given by my CAC score.
By the way, I am grateful for all the kind responses over the weekend to my story. As this forum opened, it is an emotional journey.