Crazy high calcium score of 3,000+

Posted by heycal @heycal, Jun 17, 2024

61 male with COPD which doesn't keep me from exercising regularly. No symptoms of anything unusual lately. Diet is not great, but not overweight in the least. Had a Stent put in for carotid artery 18 months ago. Been on atorvastin and ramipril for BP and high cholesterol for a few years now. Cholesterol numbers now look pretty good I think.

Just had a CT ordered for calcium score after "severe coronary calcifications" noted on routine lung CT scan. My score was just over 4000, though with 'accuracy comprised by motion detection or something', though I'm guessing it's at least somewhat roughly accurate. I was stunned by this number when I saw it today in my health app (I was prepared to freak if I saw 400!), and haven't heard back from my doctor yet. Found this group in the meantime, which made me slow my catastrophic thoughts somewhat as I imagined myself undergoing emgergency heart surgery this evening....

As I await further word, perhaps you folks can tell me what these numbers mean in the report, and what I can expect going forward?

LM: 0 LAD: 658 LCx: 329 RCA: 3062

Thank you,

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

Profile picture for heycal @heycal

Update for those following along. My stress test was fine. Cardiologist says no further testing necessary as long as I remain symptom-free. A childhood friend who's also a cardiologist agrees. They both disagreed with those here and elsewhere who say you can't trust these things alone and must get an angiogram or heart cath to be sure.

Jump to this post

But don't those high numbers mean SOMETHING?? If they're telling people a good score to have is zero then a score in the thousands must indicate some sort of blockage, right? I'm not trying to scare you or be mean. I personally just got a scan and my LAD score is 400. I'm seeing everywhere that this is very serious although I am not seeing a cardiologist until Thursday. Your post is encouraging yet I'm still scared and it's all very confusing.

REPLY
Profile picture for sdbonniea123 @sdbonniea123

But don't those high numbers mean SOMETHING?? If they're telling people a good score to have is zero then a score in the thousands must indicate some sort of blockage, right? I'm not trying to scare you or be mean. I personally just got a scan and my LAD score is 400. I'm seeing everywhere that this is very serious although I am not seeing a cardiologist until Thursday. Your post is encouraging yet I'm still scared and it's all very confusing.

Jump to this post

@sdbonniea123 As I understand it, those high numbers MIGHT mean something significant, but they also might not. That there may be a correlation between high numbers and a blockage, but there is not causation. We already know this because plenty of people here and in similar groups did the additional gold standard testing I haven't done and were found to be free of blockages. They simply didn't have blockages, regardless of what number they got on a calcium score test.

As was explained to me, the score indicates how much calcium you have. But the more important thing is WHERE the calcium is. You can have a high score in the thousands and be fine, and you can have score of 50 and have a problem because of where it's located. I'm trying to think of a good analogy, and the best I can come up with this flawed one: You can have 20 gunshots fired at you or 1 gunshot fired at you. Now, 20 gunshots sounds much worse than 1 gunshot, right? But what if the 20 gunshots all miss, and the one gunshot hits you?

All that said, the high number is still a cause of concern to my doctors, and something that needs to be watched more closely than if one had a low score and requires more aggressive treatment. But it doesn't mean there is a blockage now, or that there definitely will ever be one if I understand things right.

REPLY
Profile picture for kswartz @kswartz

Surprised you are on Such a low dose statin. My husband’s cardiologist increased his atorvastatin from 10mg to 80mg when his Ca score was 5,185.
Even though his LDL was within normal limits. Her goal is to have his LDL 40-50. He has no symptoms at all, is not overweight, does not drink or smoke.

Jump to this post

@kswartz The doc actually wanted me at 80mg, but I felt I was experiencing side affects so immdiately went down to 60mg which she was fine with. But I will re-visit this issue and target LDL when I go back soon. I've read recommendations to get below 55 LDL, but I don't think my doc felt that was crucial. Mine was 65 LDL on the last test, and 69 before that, which I suspect is higher than she would like, so we will see....

REPLY
Profile picture for heycal @heycal

@sdbonniea123 As I understand it, those high numbers MIGHT mean something significant, but they also might not. That there may be a correlation between high numbers and a blockage, but there is not causation. We already know this because plenty of people here and in similar groups did the additional gold standard testing I haven't done and were found to be free of blockages. They simply didn't have blockages, regardless of what number they got on a calcium score test.

As was explained to me, the score indicates how much calcium you have. But the more important thing is WHERE the calcium is. You can have a high score in the thousands and be fine, and you can have score of 50 and have a problem because of where it's located. I'm trying to think of a good analogy, and the best I can come up with this flawed one: You can have 20 gunshots fired at you or 1 gunshot fired at you. Now, 20 gunshots sounds much worse than 1 gunshot, right? But what if the 20 gunshots all miss, and the one gunshot hits you?

All that said, the high number is still a cause of concern to my doctors, and something that needs to be watched more closely than if one had a low score and requires more aggressive treatment. But it doesn't mean there is a blockage now, or that there definitely will ever be one if I understand things right.

Jump to this post

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and informative response! I understand the analogy and appreciate it. This arms me with some more questions to ask at the cardiologist at my appt tomorrow. I may come back and share what I’ve learned. Thanks again and all the best to you!

REPLY
Profile picture for sdbonniea123 @sdbonniea123

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and informative response! I understand the analogy and appreciate it. This arms me with some more questions to ask at the cardiologist at my appt tomorrow. I may come back and share what I’ve learned. Thanks again and all the best to you!

Jump to this post

@sdbonniea123 I'm glad my response was helpful. Please do let us know what happens. I wish some others who have participated in this thread would give their own updates.

REPLY
Profile picture for sdbonniea123 @sdbonniea123

But don't those high numbers mean SOMETHING?? If they're telling people a good score to have is zero then a score in the thousands must indicate some sort of blockage, right? I'm not trying to scare you or be mean. I personally just got a scan and my LAD score is 400. I'm seeing everywhere that this is very serious although I am not seeing a cardiologist until Thursday. Your post is encouraging yet I'm still scared and it's all very confusing.

Jump to this post

Exactly. Only thing cardio is doing is rechecking lipids in 3 mo. We are in a heart healthy diet, but I don’t think anything is going to remove the calcium already there. My husband feels like a ticking time bomb. I’ve not seen anyone with a score of 5185 ! I’ve made an appointment to see a cardiologist in November because I want to see what my score is. My husband will go with me , and maybe this cardiologist will have more to say. I’ll update you if we learn anything else.

REPLY
Profile picture for heycal @heycal

@sdbonniea123 As I understand it, those high numbers MIGHT mean something significant, but they also might not. That there may be a correlation between high numbers and a blockage, but there is not causation. We already know this because plenty of people here and in similar groups did the additional gold standard testing I haven't done and were found to be free of blockages. They simply didn't have blockages, regardless of what number they got on a calcium score test.

As was explained to me, the score indicates how much calcium you have. But the more important thing is WHERE the calcium is. You can have a high score in the thousands and be fine, and you can have score of 50 and have a problem because of where it's located. I'm trying to think of a good analogy, and the best I can come up with this flawed one: You can have 20 gunshots fired at you or 1 gunshot fired at you. Now, 20 gunshots sounds much worse than 1 gunshot, right? But what if the 20 gunshots all miss, and the one gunshot hits you?

All that said, the high number is still a cause of concern to my doctors, and something that needs to be watched more closely than if one had a low score and requires more aggressive treatment. But it doesn't mean there is a blockage now, or that there definitely will ever be one if I understand things right.

Jump to this post

Thank you so much for your insights. Based on a strong family history, I had a heart calcium scan done in May. Scored in the 1600’s. Received a call from a cardiologist (never seen one before) telling me to come in sooner rather than later. Saw him within 10 days and he’s using terms like widow maker, open heart surgery or stents. Did an EKG in the office same visit, scheduled me for an echocardiogram which took 4 weeks to get in. Then a heart catherization which took another 4 weeks. For those 2 months, I am terrified to do anything thinking I’m going to keel over at any time. Results of the heart cath showed 30% blockage.

I’m delighted with those results, but was surprised I never received any helpful info from the cardiologist. I had to do the research myself to see if this was a common thing. I looked on the Mayo Clinic website and found people who have experienced similar results. That has been very helpful. Thanks to all who shared similar experiences.

REPLY
Profile picture for sheriy @sheriy

Thank you so much for your insights. Based on a strong family history, I had a heart calcium scan done in May. Scored in the 1600’s. Received a call from a cardiologist (never seen one before) telling me to come in sooner rather than later. Saw him within 10 days and he’s using terms like widow maker, open heart surgery or stents. Did an EKG in the office same visit, scheduled me for an echocardiogram which took 4 weeks to get in. Then a heart catherization which took another 4 weeks. For those 2 months, I am terrified to do anything thinking I’m going to keel over at any time. Results of the heart cath showed 30% blockage.

I’m delighted with those results, but was surprised I never received any helpful info from the cardiologist. I had to do the research myself to see if this was a common thing. I looked on the Mayo Clinic website and found people who have experienced similar results. That has been very helpful. Thanks to all who shared similar experiences.

Jump to this post

Sorry to hear all that. Always puzzled by these doctors who warn of life or death conditions -- and then seem fine with scheduling proceedures several weeks down the line. If something is truly dangerous, shouldn't one be leaving the doc's office in an ambulance headed straight to the hospital?

REPLY
Profile picture for heycal @heycal

@sdbonniea123 I'm glad my response was helpful. Please do let us know what happens. I wish some others who have participated in this thread would give their own updates.

Jump to this post

Hi there - just got back from first visit with cardiologist. I'm not super good at understanding all of this but my husband was there and sort of helps interpret. I think my cognition has really declined and it might be because of these issues,but that's a whole other story. What I think she said was that (1) she has seen far higher scores than 400 and that the bigger concern is the cholesterol. I think what she was trying to say in so many words is the calcium equates to the hard plaque and the cholesterol to soft plaque. Since I have a family history of fatal cardiac events in my immediate family and have had high cholesterol since my early twenties which I didn't pay attention to, she felt that I should go ahead and do more testing. She suggested both the CT with contrast and the angio. I at first went with the CT scan because it's very low risk but on the way home my husband and I decided I should probably opt for the angio. Should there be issues they can take care of it right then and there instead of the stress of waiting for insurance approval and all that. so when I got home I wrote her an email and told her I would like to change to the angio. I'm a little scared but I know they do millions of these all the time and she said the risk rate was like 1%. Physically I feel horrible and I have for years. I've been chasing solutions through every means possible including functional doctors, ayurveda, acupuncture, hormone replacement therapy, etc I will be really curious to see what they find and if they can help me get some quality of life. I just feel like I have no energy and no life force. Plus my blood pressure is getting really low and she said normally they like to see that but in a patient that has these issues it's not good. if you have any prayers or good thoughts you want to send my way, I'll take them! And I'll try to follow up after my next step / procedure.

REPLY
Profile picture for sdbonniea123 @sdbonniea123

Hi there - just got back from first visit with cardiologist. I'm not super good at understanding all of this but my husband was there and sort of helps interpret. I think my cognition has really declined and it might be because of these issues,but that's a whole other story. What I think she said was that (1) she has seen far higher scores than 400 and that the bigger concern is the cholesterol. I think what she was trying to say in so many words is the calcium equates to the hard plaque and the cholesterol to soft plaque. Since I have a family history of fatal cardiac events in my immediate family and have had high cholesterol since my early twenties which I didn't pay attention to, she felt that I should go ahead and do more testing. She suggested both the CT with contrast and the angio. I at first went with the CT scan because it's very low risk but on the way home my husband and I decided I should probably opt for the angio. Should there be issues they can take care of it right then and there instead of the stress of waiting for insurance approval and all that. so when I got home I wrote her an email and told her I would like to change to the angio. I'm a little scared but I know they do millions of these all the time and she said the risk rate was like 1%. Physically I feel horrible and I have for years. I've been chasing solutions through every means possible including functional doctors, ayurveda, acupuncture, hormone replacement therapy, etc I will be really curious to see what they find and if they can help me get some quality of life. I just feel like I have no energy and no life force. Plus my blood pressure is getting really low and she said normally they like to see that but in a patient that has these issues it's not good. if you have any prayers or good thoughts you want to send my way, I'll take them! And I'll try to follow up after my next step / procedure.

Jump to this post

Sorry for your troubles. Let's hope that whatever they find could possibly lead to a better quality of life for you. Good luck and please keep us posted!

REPLY
Please sign in or register to post a reply.