90% Chance of Significant Blockage with Calcium Score Greater Than 400

Posted by bitsygirl @bitsygirl, Feb 7 7:18pm

I have seen the statistic that there is a 90% chance of a significant blockage with a calcium score greater than 400 from multiple seemingly good sources. Does anyone know where this statistic came from?

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

I heard someone say that...never seen any literature to back it up. Pretty broad statement, especially as you can see and read on this forum many people have 1000+ with no blockage or minimal that is managed medically.

REPLY
@jasper1072

I heard someone say that...never seen any literature to back it up. Pretty broad statement, especially as you can see and read on this forum many people have 1000+ with no blockage or minimal that is managed medically.

Jump to this post

That’s exactly my thought. I don’t know any people IRL with high CAC, but most people on this forum don’t seem to have blockages. Not scientific at all, but got me wondering.

REPLY
https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/ryct.2021200484

You'll be asked maybe about cookies, I just click on the second option and click on 'only essential'....as if that's better than any alternative. But, you'll have to read well down and find that density is more relevant than the CAC count, itself.

REPLY

Hi bitsygirl,

Actually I had a decent calcium score from what I understand (128) but had a 99%+ blockage. I might have been an outlier. Have they done a nuclear study or scheduled an angiogram? Do you have any other symptoms? In my opinion, I think it is the only way to be sure.

Hugs and well wishes. Mike

REPLY

bitsygirl,

Can you link those multiple sources wrt the statistic, please?

REPLY
@mikekennedy759

Hi bitsygirl,

Actually I had a decent calcium score from what I understand (128) but had a 99%+ blockage. I might have been an outlier. Have they done a nuclear study or scheduled an angiogram? Do you have any other symptoms? In my opinion, I think it is the only way to be sure.

Hugs and well wishes. Mike

Jump to this post

I had a score in the 98th percentile for my age and gender and it was very unexpected for my lifestyle and general health. Fast forward 10 months and I know my blockages are “mild” and “minimal”, which means less than 50% if I remember correctly, so I am in as good a position as I guess I could expect given the score. I just think about it more than I probably should and my mind wanders.

I really appreciate your caring reply and well wishes. I gather you are doing well after the blockage was discovered?

REPLY
@gloaming
https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/ryct.2021200484

You'll be asked maybe about cookies, I just click on the second option and click on 'only essential'....as if that's better than any alternative. But, you'll have to read well down and find that density is more relevant than the CAC count, itself.

Jump to this post

Thanks! I’ll check it out.

REPLY
@bitsygirl

I had a score in the 98th percentile for my age and gender and it was very unexpected for my lifestyle and general health. Fast forward 10 months and I know my blockages are “mild” and “minimal”, which means less than 50% if I remember correctly, so I am in as good a position as I guess I could expect given the score. I just think about it more than I probably should and my mind wanders.

I really appreciate your caring reply and well wishes. I gather you are doing well after the blockage was discovered?

Jump to this post

Yes, it was. But it was a shock to the interventional cardiologist. He was not expecting it.

Are you having shortness of breath? That sometimes is a clue. Or its hard to exercise because you cannot catch your breath.

By the way, I like your ID name: bitsygirl...it sounds so cheerful and cute.

REPLY

bitsygirl,

Given the language is the same in those citations, it is likely pulled from some other study or perhaps a synopsis. Seems kinda like "boilerplate."

Not saying the numbers are not generally accurate, just that this all looks too consistent.

REPLY
Please sign in or register to post a reply.