Crazy high calcium score of 3,000+

..by the way, because it was so depressing to learn of an ultra-high CAC score, and what that means mortality-wise, I'm glad I did the CTA - for my own mental health. As it turned out, the two worst-affected arteries for me (LAD and RCA) were 40 and 50% stenosis in two small parts and 10-20% in two small other areas. So could be worse, though there obviously could be worse stenosis in other areas not seen. I'm doing TCD doppler scans now to check blood flow in my head and neck. If that's bad, I'll do another CTA for head and neck. I know the doctors don't recommend these due to the affect contrast dye can have on kindeys, but mine seem stronger than usual for my age. So it's a roll of the dice. To each his own I guess.

Yes, a lot to think about @kswartz! You are doing everything you can by staying active, watching what you eat, and working with a cardiologist who is on top of your unique situations. Your husband’s 5000+ calcium score sounds shocking and I imagine you joining him by addressing your own heart health encourages him tremendously.

I am tagging members that may have helpful information/updates to share. @heycal created this discussion after a routine CT. @robmtk and @njx58 have mentioned an extremely high calcium score and/or treating LDL.

Like your husband, my LDL goal is 50. Getting close to that the last year or so has required a knowledgeable care team and multiple medications that seem to have synergy working together. I also get relief from Flonase and antihistamine eye drops, in addition to a super consistent high level of exercise, strict diet and weight training.

You mention walking daily and improving your diet. What kind of changes have you made?

I am so, so sorry you are scared, @sdbonniea123.

The exercise these cardiologists went through had the goal of figuring out if they could guess where heart attacks would happen. The hypothesis they started with was that problems start at the place where the blockages are the greatest, where the most calcification, or hard plaque is located. So, following this upfront guess, you would think an 80% blockage would cause more problems than say, a 35% blockage. This is NOT what they found.

I found this explanation:
“ Unfortunately, as we age, plaque accumulates in our arteries. This starts as soft, cholesterol-laden plaque that eventually calcifies and hardens. Even though the process effectively begins at birth, most people do not have clinically significant blockages in their arteries until they are well into middle age.

Interestingly, and somewhat counterintuitively, calcified plaque is probably the less dangerous of the two. When a heart attack happens it is due to the sudden rupture of a soft, unstable plaque that might be obstructing only 10 or 20 per cent of the artery. Longstanding, calcified 90-per-cent blockages don’t cause heart attacks. They may cause angina — chest pain on exertion — but a stable plaque won’t suddenly rupture and provoke a myocardial infarction.”

I don’t remember you saying you are having angina symptoms, or chest pain. I am guessing that when your cardiologist told you they are more concerned about your cholesterol than your 400 calcium score, they are saying the concern is your softer plaque, and that is something you can do something about. I am not a medical person, just someone on this same path as you.

Why did you have your initial calcium testing done, were you having symptoms? Did your cardiologist do bloodwork?