I'm in an online group that shares information about cardiovascular risks and treatments. Soon after I joined the group I noticed that many people who had or were considering getting a CAC considered the scores to be definitive of having or not having cardiovascular - heart disease. That didn't make sense to me for exactly the reasons that Dr. Brewer states in the video. The CAC, as well as the CT Angiogram, Nuclear Stress Test, and conventional angiogram, are able to identify problems only well after the inflammation and soft plaque buildup start. They may have varying effectiveness in determining actual heart attack or stroke risk. However, for heart disease - cardiovascular disease, that already exists. CAC scoring is a useful tool, but it is only one tool. It has limitations, but many people, including medical professionals and researchers, seem to overlook or ignore those limitations. Diagnosing cardiovascular-heart disease risk and heart attack or stroke risk requires a lot more than a standard lipid panel and a single score measure such as a CAC, CTA, or NST. And as for diabetes, screening needs to be started a lot earlier and a lot more effectively than it currently is by those in mainstream medicine practices.
I have a prominent aortic valve leaflet calcification atherosclerosis including severe coronary artery calcification Suggestion of aorta to brachiocephalic artery bypass. Can someone tell me what this means and what can I do about it?
"Radionuclides", as you state, are NOT present in the contrast material (Xray dye) used in arteriograms, cardiac or otherwise. Radionuclides are used in Nuclear Medicine scans such as a brain scan or bone scan. An angiogram uses contrast material which contains a metalloid substance, iodine, which does show up on Xrays. A radionuclide is a radioactive material, that is, it emits radioactive particles; Iodine, on the other hand, is not radioactive, it is simply a dense material.
What I would have loved to see is the fasting insulin numbers for the patients with plaque and without plaque. May help show a correlation between insulin resistance and heart disease. My theory is that they are closely related but I have not heard of any studies that proved or disproved this.
@@shkelzennokaj5194 My theory in that seems to be the most credible of the various theories I have heard. I am no scientist 😊 Just rely on listening to a variety of researchers and seeing what makes the most sense.
@@mariomenezes1153 We're on the same boat. I believe, based on some top notch biomedical engineers, that insulin resistance is directly correlated to heart disease and cancer. Basically, what some scientists say that there is no heart disease or cancer without insulin issues first.
@@shkelzennokaj5194 I agree with the premise. Have seen lots of studies that correlate high BMI, high BP, high ApoB etc with arterial plaque by themselves, but none in correlation with insulin resistance included. That is a shame. Have seen lots of studies that say there people with those conditions who have long lives. My suspicion is that insulin resistance is the missing link but am not sure why it has not been highlighted yet. My guess is that it does not benefit big pharmacy, the low fat lobby and medical Associations that get sponsored by these lobbies. Just my private conspiracy theory 😊
Soft plaques can be reversed and calcified plaque is much harder or maybe not possible to be removed? If that is true, statins increase soft plaque becoming calcified plaque making your soft plaque more stable but at the same time taking away your chance of reducing your plaque?
Non-calcified plaque is unstable and you do not want it to rupture/move. Some recommendations are that you reduce inflammation, etc. to stop new soft plaque forming, allow that soft plaque to calcify, then you can reduce it by taking K2 and probably some other supplements. Whilst some doctors will say that calcified plaque cannot be removed, there are a number of people that have shown over periods of months to years that they did indeed reduce their calcified plaque and CAC scores.
@@jesseshaver2262 It is quite slow and it is a literal dissolving of hard plaques. Some studies showed significant reduction over a 6 to 12 week period. You should not attempt that with soft plaques. Wait for them to harden.
I got my first ever CAC score last year (early June) at the age of 61, and got a score of 70.(LM: 43 LAD: 27 CX: 0 RCA: 0) I'm curious how soon I should get another test to see if there is any change. Also detected was a 4.0 cm fusiform ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm. Not wide enough to consider the danger of surgery, but something to keep an eye on.
Typically it would be at 5 year intervals, which is long enough for a meaningful change to show. Lower your inflammation, get your triglycerides lower if they are high, maybe consider taking vitamin D and K2. Probably a few things you can do before your next test. I got my test when I was 56 and scored zero. They found a benign partially grown lymph node in my heart! I might get another test when I'm 61+ but I have to pay for it and they are expensive here in NZ. I've had high LDL my whole life. It doesn't appear to have affected my cardiovascular health. Update: The MESA Arterial Age Calculator indicates that a score of zero is associated with an estimated arterial age of 39 years old and score 70 is arterial age 70 years old.
@@trail.blazer I already do the things you suggest. Supplement with vit D 8000 IU per day for at least 2 years, recent test result shows my blood level in middle range of normal. Been taking K2 daily for several years also. My C-reactive protein score (inflammation) is currently 0.19 mg/L very low. My triglycerides are 76 mg/dL with HDL at 109 mg/dL, so my tri/HDL ratio is around .70, with anything less than 1 being good. I think my CAC score might be the result of my high carb diet before I went low carb/keto/carnivore, as I was in the sport of bicycle racing for over 25 years, and high carb was the way to go, athletes were told. Right now I'm more concerned about the aneurysm than the CAC score, wondering how soon to recheck to see if it's getting any bigger.
@@lloydhlavac6807 I'm in a similar situation to you. I used to do a lot of road cycling, now mountain bike, but high carbs used to be the way. I can now go much further & longer on low carb. I was concerned my high carb did damage and might still be the case, but my saving grace is that between around age 18 and 30, I never ate sugar. Might have saved me! I have pulsatile tinnitus where I can hear my heart beat in my left ear, so I thought that might be aneurysm. The doctor said it was benign, but it is still very unnerving even after having it for 5 years. For an aneurysm you can potentially scan as often as every 3 months. Ascending aortic grows slower, so that could maybe mean every 6 months to a year. It's interesting how D levels vary. I was using 5,000 IU for a only a year and got my levels to a fraction over the top of range. I've now reduced that to taking a couple of times a week because I would prefer to be a bit below top. For other readers, that is why it is important to check your levels occasionally if you are higher dosing. If I took 8,000 IU then I would be in danger of building up too much, then things like hypercalcemia become a potential issue.
Basically this study is saying that a 0 calcium score may not guarantee that you are not on the early stages of heart disease. Calcium score does not detect early stages of heart disease.
It depends on your age. CAC of zero at 30 years old does not mean much, but having zero as you progressively get older is a better indication. Someone of 60+ with a CAC of zero is more indicative of less likelihood of soft plaques. A score of 0 is associated with people 32 to 46 years of age and score 5 for people of 48 to 56 years of age. That is due to the commonly seen development of hard plaques. Many 60 year olds would be expected to have a CAC score of around 20.
@@trail.blazer To me is sounds like a test which would cause someone great stress knowing they had it and nothing to do about it. Would feel like a ticking time bomb just waiting to explode.
I have not had symptoms, but heart doctor”s advice I did get a calcium artery score test , which was zero. Carotid arteries are also clear 63-year-old diabetic (HbA1c 5.6%) does that mean I’m OK? Again I do not have any symptoms. .
There are no guarantees, but there is a possibility that due to your older age (over around 50), your CAC score of zero might be a better indication that you are unlikely to have much in the way of soft plaques. The reasoning behind that is that if you were likely to form plaques, you would have done it earlier in age and over 10-20 years they would have more likely calcified.
Then, it has to be a weakness of the heart. Average age of attack without exercise, ever. I did the elimination of carbs and sugars, meats only with lifting weights. I lowered my burden in one artery. That is why I think this. I can feel chunks of plaque falling away inside my heart.
@@trail.blazer are you sure about that? maybe this is new ground. fact is, I felt heart pain before and after my first score. one year later my second score showed my left main was clear. Maybe this shows saturated fat will break up soft plaques and reabsorb it in to the blood stream. it has been two years since my first heart pain.
@@macoediv Hard plaques dissolve better, are more stable, but can break off. That has nowhere to go and is going to have to lodge somewhere. If it lodges in a vital vessel, that is going to be a problem. Soft plaques are more likely to crack or rupture. If a soft plaque does that, the blood will clot around it and that is possibly going to cause a stroke or heart attack. I'm not aware of saturated fat being able to reduce plaques, not that I'm against saturated fat because I eat a lot of it myself. I don't touch seed oils! Do you supplement K2?
Nobody is risk free but a zero score is certainly a big weight off ones mind.
How hard would it be, Dr Brewer, for you to provide links to the studies you discuss? Not very hard.
I'm in an online group that shares information about cardiovascular risks and treatments. Soon after I joined the group I noticed that many people who had or were considering getting a CAC considered the scores to be definitive of having or not having cardiovascular - heart disease. That didn't make sense to me for exactly the reasons that Dr. Brewer states in the video. The CAC, as well as the CT Angiogram, Nuclear Stress Test, and conventional angiogram, are able to identify problems only well after the inflammation and soft plaque buildup start. They may have varying effectiveness in determining actual heart attack or stroke risk. However, for heart disease - cardiovascular disease, that already exists. CAC scoring is a useful tool, but it is only one tool. It has limitations, but many people, including medical professionals and researchers, seem to overlook or ignore those limitations. Diagnosing cardiovascular-heart disease risk and heart attack or stroke risk requires a lot more than a standard lipid panel and a single score measure such as a CAC, CTA, or NST. And as for diabetes, screening needs to be started a lot earlier and a lot more effectively than it currently is by those in mainstream medicine practices.
What good is the calcium score than?
You are right on time. I got a zero. I will run other tests to see what I need to do.
I have a prominent aortic valve leaflet calcification atherosclerosis including severe coronary artery calcification
Suggestion of aorta to brachiocephalic artery bypass.
Can someone tell me what this means and what can I do about it?
"Radionuclides", as you state, are NOT present in the contrast material (Xray dye) used in arteriograms, cardiac or otherwise. Radionuclides are used in Nuclear Medicine scans such as a brain scan or bone scan. An angiogram uses contrast material which contains a metalloid substance, iodine, which does show up on Xrays. A radionuclide is a radioactive material, that is, it emits radioactive particles; Iodine, on the other hand, is not radioactive, it is simply a dense material.
What I would have loved to see is the fasting insulin numbers for the patients with plaque and without plaque. May help show a correlation between insulin resistance and heart disease. My theory is that they are closely related but I have not heard of any studies that proved or disproved this.
I think youre right, but thats not your theory.
@@shkelzennokaj5194 My theory in that seems to be the most credible of the various theories I have heard. I am no scientist 😊 Just rely on listening to a variety of researchers and seeing what makes the most sense.
@@mariomenezes1153 We're on the same boat. I believe, based on some top notch biomedical engineers, that insulin resistance is directly correlated to heart disease and cancer. Basically, what some scientists say that there is no heart disease or cancer without insulin issues first.
@@shkelzennokaj5194 I agree with the premise. Have seen lots of studies that correlate high BMI, high BP, high ApoB etc with arterial plaque by themselves, but none in correlation with insulin resistance included. That is a shame. Have seen lots of studies that say there people with those conditions who have long lives. My suspicion is that insulin resistance is the missing link but am not sure why it has not been highlighted yet. My guess is that it does not benefit big pharmacy, the low fat lobby and medical Associations that get sponsored by these lobbies. Just my private conspiracy theory 😊
What is the truth and significance behind plaques on the outside of the arteries?
Unfortunately CIMT is not available in all states.
My CAC score was 728 2 years ago, now it’s 660, should I take a statin?
The fear these things perpetuate is not helpful..He is pushing statins! Diet, supplements and other interventions should be discussed..
Soft plaques can be reversed and calcified plaque is much harder or maybe not possible to be removed? If that is true, statins increase soft plaque becoming calcified plaque making your soft plaque more stable but at the same time taking away your chance of reducing your plaque?
Can non-calcified plaque be removed from the body thru losing weight or fasting?
Non-calcified plaque is unstable and you do not want it to rupture/move. Some recommendations are that you reduce inflammation, etc. to stop new soft plaque forming, allow that soft plaque to calcify, then you can reduce it by taking K2 and probably some other supplements.
Whilst some doctors will say that calcified plaque cannot be removed, there are a number of people that have shown over periods of months to years that they did indeed reduce their calcified plaque and CAC scores.
@@trail.blazer guess it depends on how it is dissolved. If it was in small enough particles, than it may be safe
@@jesseshaver2262 It is quite slow and it is a literal dissolving of hard plaques. Some studies showed significant reduction over a 6 to 12 week period.
You should not attempt that with soft plaques. Wait for them to harden.
I got my first ever CAC score last year (early June) at the age of 61, and got a score of 70.(LM: 43 LAD: 27 CX: 0 RCA: 0) I'm curious how soon I should get another test to see if there is any change. Also detected was a 4.0 cm fusiform ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm. Not wide enough to consider the danger of surgery, but something to keep an eye on.
Typically it would be at 5 year intervals, which is long enough for a meaningful change to show. Lower your inflammation, get your triglycerides lower if they are high, maybe consider taking vitamin D and K2. Probably a few things you can do before your next test.
I got my test when I was 56 and scored zero. They found a benign partially grown lymph node in my heart! I might get another test when I'm 61+ but I have to pay for it and they are expensive here in NZ.
I've had high LDL my whole life. It doesn't appear to have affected my cardiovascular health.
Update: The MESA Arterial Age Calculator indicates that a score of zero is associated with an estimated arterial age of 39 years old and score 70 is arterial age 70 years old.
@@trail.blazer I already do the things you suggest. Supplement with vit D 8000 IU per day for at least 2 years, recent test result shows my blood level in middle range of normal. Been taking K2 daily for several years also. My C-reactive protein score (inflammation) is currently 0.19 mg/L very low. My triglycerides are 76 mg/dL with HDL at 109 mg/dL, so my tri/HDL ratio is around .70, with anything less than 1 being good.
I think my CAC score might be the result of my high carb diet before I went low carb/keto/carnivore, as I was in the sport of bicycle racing for over 25 years, and high carb was the way to go, athletes were told.
Right now I'm more concerned about the aneurysm than the CAC score, wondering how soon to recheck to see if it's getting any bigger.
@@lloydhlavac6807 I'm in a similar situation to you. I used to do a lot of road cycling, now mountain bike, but high carbs used to be the way. I can now go much further & longer on low carb. I was concerned my high carb did damage and might still be the case, but my saving grace is that between around age 18 and 30, I never ate sugar. Might have saved me!
I have pulsatile tinnitus where I can hear my heart beat in my left ear, so I thought that might be aneurysm. The doctor said it was benign, but it is still very unnerving even after having it for 5 years.
For an aneurysm you can potentially scan as often as every 3 months. Ascending aortic grows slower, so that could maybe mean every 6 months to a year.
It's interesting how D levels vary. I was using 5,000 IU for a only a year and got my levels to a fraction over the top of range. I've now reduced that to taking a couple of times a week because I would prefer to be a bit below top.
For other readers, that is why it is important to check your levels occasionally if you are higher dosing. If I took 8,000 IU then I would be in danger of building up too much, then things like hypercalcemia become a potential issue.
@@J.o.e_K Well my main concern isn't even the CAC score, it's that aortic aneurysm. I want to get another scan to see if that has gotten any bigger.
Basically this study is saying that a 0 calcium score may not guarantee that you are not on the early stages of heart disease. Calcium score does not detect early stages of heart disease.
Apparently even advanced, since you can have a calcium score of 0 and still be over 50% blocked... that's pretty advanced... just not calicifed.
If you can score a 0 and still have plaque, why even have this test?
Good point -
Because CAC has predictive value of future heart attack and/or stroke regardless of occlusion.
@@dmmcmah1 I don't see how
It depends on your age. CAC of zero at 30 years old does not mean much, but having zero as you progressively get older is a better indication. Someone of 60+ with a CAC of zero is more indicative of less likelihood of soft plaques.
A score of 0 is associated with people 32 to 46 years of age and score 5 for people of 48 to 56 years of age. That is due to the commonly seen development of hard plaques. Many 60 year olds would be expected to have a CAC score of around 20.
@@trail.blazer To me is sounds like a test which would cause someone great stress knowing they had it and nothing to do about it. Would feel like a ticking time bomb just waiting to explode.
I have not had symptoms, but heart doctor”s advice I did get a calcium artery score test , which was zero. Carotid arteries are also clear
63-year-old diabetic (HbA1c 5.6%) does that mean I’m OK? Again I do not have any symptoms.
.
There are no guarantees, but there is a possibility that due to your older age (over around 50), your CAC score of zero might be a better indication that you are unlikely to have much in the way of soft plaques. The reasoning behind that is that if you were likely to form plaques, you would have done it earlier in age and over 10-20 years they would have more likely calcified.
Yep, it only means you DO have it, not that you "don't" have it.
Where can I get a cimt test in Atlanta?
Wondering how we survived through history at all without statins. :-)
Then, it has to be a weakness of the heart. Average age of attack without exercise, ever. I did the elimination of carbs and sugars, meats only with lifting weights. I lowered my burden in one artery.
That is why I think this.
I can feel chunks of plaque falling away inside my heart.
If you had any chunks of plaque falling away inside your heart, you would probably have had a stroke by now.
@@trail.blazer are you sure about that? maybe this is new ground. fact is, I felt heart pain before and after my first score. one year later my second score showed my left main was clear. Maybe this shows saturated fat will break up soft plaques and reabsorb it in to the blood stream. it has been two years since my first heart pain.
@@macoediv Hard plaques dissolve better, are more stable, but can break off. That has nowhere to go and is going to have to lodge somewhere. If it lodges in a vital vessel, that is going to be a problem.
Soft plaques are more likely to crack or rupture. If a soft plaque does that, the blood will clot around it and that is possibly going to cause a stroke or heart attack.
I'm not aware of saturated fat being able to reduce plaques, not that I'm against saturated fat because I eat a lot of it myself. I don't touch seed oils!
Do you supplement K2?
What this tells me is that this test is worthless 🤔❓️
Not true
What's not true?
???