my Cornary Artery calcium score

Good day, and welcome to Mayo Community fora.

There isn't much you can do at this point. I don't imply any judgement, just stating what I understand dispassionately from your shared information. You have combined genetics and phenotype (your lineage and the influences of decisions made by yourself and by others, including pursuits, habits, other interests) working for and against you, but to what extent either way is unknown to me. A history of substance abuse might be a large factor, but it could just as easily be your emotional control, disposition, lifestyle....anything that might raise cortisol to the point where it began to encourage deposition of plaque.

To me, if one has to have substantial deposition of plaque, then you'd also want it to be at least moderately calcified so that it is immobile, fixed, and not friable and liable to travel to where it can do substantial harm. Your numbers say you have several near-occlusions that could cause trouble before long, although the caclification should give you some comfort that you're just likely to have to be concerned about blockages in time, and they would follow a period of dangerously low flow past the narrowings.

Has anyone offered an opinion about bypassing, stents, whatever? Any arrhythmias showing up, aneurisms, dissections?

@gloaming
thank you for taking your time to respond to me. i am an alcoholic and cant undo that, just trying to do the right thing for my body going forward. Now that i have the info from the CAC screening (other than " you have severe atherosclerosis") maybe we can focus on specific areas like you mention. Can some of the things you mention be done prior to a cardiovascular event or do i have to wait until i have a heart attack? No one has mentioned stents, bypasses, or dissections. i will though. thank you again.

@ewcm20 The general policy across the field is that a mechanical intervention like a stent or bypass procedure is undertaken when the obstruction nears 90%. That seems 'faint-of-heart' to me, like the risks of the intervention are about equal to just letting the heart run up to and beyond 90% obstruction/restriction. Or is it that the insurance industry won't fund until the 90% mark is reached with the hope that the patient will infarct or spontaneously kick the bucket before they incur the liability of the reimbursement/payment? Yes, call me cynical if you must. It 's apt.

A heart attack, also known as a myocardial infarction, occurs when blood flow to the heart is blocked, causing damage to the heart muscle. This blockage can lead to tissue death if not treated promptly. The main cause of a heart attack is coronary artery disease, which narrows the arteries supplying blood to the heart. Symptoms may include chest pain, shortness of breath, and discomfort in other areas of the upper body. Immediate medical attention is crucial to restore blood flow and minimize heart damage.
You don't want a heart attack!
Your doctor could recommend a cardiac catheterization to see the degree of blockage.
Maybe a stent or two or a bypass. I had a calcium scoring test of 1350 and shortly after a bypass.

yep pretty sure i dont want a heart attack! my doc just is so set on statins....very frustrating....