High Coronary Calcium Score: How do others feel emotionally?

Posted by mcphee @mcphee, Dec 14, 2016

I have a calcium score of 1,950 which is extremely high which means I am at a very high risk for a cardiac event,heart attack,stroke or sudden death.

I take a statin and baby aspirin. I have never been sick, have excellent cholesterol, low blood pressure and I am not overweight. I have no other health problems and I have never been sick. But I feel like a walking time bomb which has caused me a lot of stress. I am 70 yrs old.

I wonder how others with this condition feel emotionally?

Interested in more discussions like this? Go to the Heart & Blood Health Support Group.

@santafepete

Yes, that is my opinion. The JAMA meta study that came out in the spring of 2022 really showed that while the relative reduction in the use of statins towards cardiovascular disease looked promising, the absolute does not. This is a huge hot button for cardiologists, as it has been their frontline tool, and accepting that it is not working to the extent that they have believed, and it is a hard pill to swallow.
I remember when it was first suggested that H.Pylori was responsible for ulcers, not diet and stress! My god, the entire field lit on fire that they had been wrong for so long.
When I went symptomatic with my Celiac Disease in my early 30s, the common belief was that the disease was a rare 1 in 10,000, not the 1 in 100 we know today.
It is a hard thing to get doctors to accept change.
But check around and form your own conclusions. My diseases, Celiac and Sjogrens, puts me at an extreme disadvantage for tolerating medications, and therefore I need to be looking at alternative methods to lower my risk other than statins. The doc at Cleveland did agree that I have a horrible track record for medication tolerances and advised working towards an injectable. "Working towards" because it has to be proven to the health insurance company that normal means have been exhausted---proof of intolerance.

Jump to this post

santefepete,

Thanks for making it clear it is your opinion.

As a way of follow-up, are you a scientist or medical professional?

REPLY
@mayoconnectuser1

santefepete,

Thanks for making it clear it is your opinion.

As a way of follow-up, are you a scientist or medical professional?

Jump to this post

My background has been stated perviously on this forum if you would kindly look back through the postings. And your own? Why are we asking this question? I dont seem to see that it has been asked of other forum users. Is this because you disagree with my opinion?

Also, I would suggest carefully reading the JAMA meta study, "March 14, 2022
Evaluating the Association Between Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Relative and Absolute Effects of Statin Treatment
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis" to make your own conclusions on relative vs absolute outcome using statins.

For me, I find the paper significantly discouraging on the use of statins for preventative care. Of the two cardiologist I have met with since this paper was published, both vehemently dismissed its conclusions and have stuck with their stance that statins are a proven preventative treatment. The paper was published in JAMA Internal Medicine and heavily peer reviewed, so it is not a casual statement.

Here are some of the main highlights outline directly from the summary:

"Findings Twenty-one trials were included in the analysis. Meta-analyses showed reductions in the absolute risk of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.2%) for all-cause mortality, 1.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.7%) for myocardial infarction, and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.6%) for stroke in those randomized to treatment with statins, with associated relative risk reductions of 9% (95% CI, 5%-14%), 29% (95% CI, 22%-34%), and 14% (95% CI, 5%-22%) respectively. A meta-regression exploring the potential mediating association of the magnitude of statin-induced LDL-C reduction with outcomes was inconclusive.

Conclusions and Relevance The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the absolute risk reductions of treatment with statins in terms of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke are modest compared with the relative risk reductions, and the presence of significant heterogeneity reduces the certainty of the evidence. A conclusive association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels and individual clinical outcomes was not established, and these findings underscore the importance of discussing absolute risk reductions when making informed clinical decisions with individual patients."

REPLY
@santafepete

My background has been stated perviously on this forum if you would kindly look back through the postings. And your own? Why are we asking this question? I dont seem to see that it has been asked of other forum users. Is this because you disagree with my opinion?

Also, I would suggest carefully reading the JAMA meta study, "March 14, 2022
Evaluating the Association Between Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Relative and Absolute Effects of Statin Treatment
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis" to make your own conclusions on relative vs absolute outcome using statins.

For me, I find the paper significantly discouraging on the use of statins for preventative care. Of the two cardiologist I have met with since this paper was published, both vehemently dismissed its conclusions and have stuck with their stance that statins are a proven preventative treatment. The paper was published in JAMA Internal Medicine and heavily peer reviewed, so it is not a casual statement.

Here are some of the main highlights outline directly from the summary:

"Findings Twenty-one trials were included in the analysis. Meta-analyses showed reductions in the absolute risk of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.2%) for all-cause mortality, 1.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.7%) for myocardial infarction, and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.6%) for stroke in those randomized to treatment with statins, with associated relative risk reductions of 9% (95% CI, 5%-14%), 29% (95% CI, 22%-34%), and 14% (95% CI, 5%-22%) respectively. A meta-regression exploring the potential mediating association of the magnitude of statin-induced LDL-C reduction with outcomes was inconclusive.

Conclusions and Relevance The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the absolute risk reductions of treatment with statins in terms of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke are modest compared with the relative risk reductions, and the presence of significant heterogeneity reduces the certainty of the evidence. A conclusive association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels and individual clinical outcomes was not established, and these findings underscore the importance of discussing absolute risk reductions when making informed clinical decisions with individual patients."

Jump to this post

santefepete,

Yep. Got it. As long as you're on the record.

REPLY

You guys seem a step or two ahead of the rest of us. What’s the effect of Vitamins K2 and B3 regimen to reduce Calcium Scores? i.e.Mine was recently scored at 2000. Recent Heart Cath discovered one 40% blockage in mouth of D1 Branch off of LAD.

REPLY

My Calcium Score was 2000 and if had me in mild anxiety for a few days until I called my Cardiologist and learned he had many patients in and out at 5000. He performed a Heart Cath this week and found a 40% blockage at the mouth of the D1 artery off the LAD. Said he would stint unless it got to 70%. I’m on a Heart Healthy diet. Already get good bit of exercise at the gym 3 days per week. I do need to lose 50 lbs to get to ideal weight and will do that. 81mg aspirin at night and of course on Statin - Crestor. No Beta Blocker and about to get to stop my Blood Pressure med - Ramipril. What’s the thought around supplements like Vitamin K2 - B3 taken together daily? I’m 71 years old and very active.

REPLY
@4aces4me

You guys seem a step or two ahead of the rest of us. What’s the effect of Vitamins K2 and B3 regimen to reduce Calcium Scores? i.e.Mine was recently scored at 2000. Recent Heart Cath discovered one 40% blockage in mouth of D1 Branch off of LAD.

Jump to this post

4aces,

To my knowledge there is nothing that can be done to lower calcium scores; one can only attempt to reduce the normal increases a bit by lowering LDL/triglycerides.

REPLY
@4aces4me

My Calcium Score was 2000 and if had me in mild anxiety for a few days until I called my Cardiologist and learned he had many patients in and out at 5000. He performed a Heart Cath this week and found a 40% blockage at the mouth of the D1 artery off the LAD. Said he would stint unless it got to 70%. I’m on a Heart Healthy diet. Already get good bit of exercise at the gym 3 days per week. I do need to lose 50 lbs to get to ideal weight and will do that. 81mg aspirin at night and of course on Statin - Crestor. No Beta Blocker and about to get to stop my Blood Pressure med - Ramipril. What’s the thought around supplements like Vitamin K2 - B3 taken together daily? I’m 71 years old and very active.

Jump to this post

4aces,

Do you no longer have high blood pressure?

REPLY
@mayoconnectuser1

4aces,

Do you no longer have high blood pressure?

Jump to this post

Not with the daily Ramipril. In fact, as I’m losing weight and at gym 3 days per week it is falling. I expect to be able to discontinue the Ramipril early next year.

REPLY

Ah, got it - Ramipril is an ACE inhibitor. Which BP med did you use prior to Ramipril? I am assuming you have long had high blood pressure? And, yes, weight loss will affect - way to go!

REPLY
@mayoconnectuser1

4aces,

Do you no longer have high blood pressure?

Jump to this post

Checked with Cardiologist and he said no to vitamin K. No discussion. I believe because it reduces calcium that is adhering plaque to arteries. Or interferes with the Crestor. Not sure otherwise?

REPLY
Please sign in or register to post a reply.