pandor7:

Yes that is high. Is your prescribing physician your EP? Did that person order the test? It was done for "suspected" coronary artery disease, particularly if your score was high, so maybe it will be paid for. Are you male or female and what age? That matters. Are you concerned about the safety profile of flecainide? I would ask your EP tomorrow?

I would encourage everyone to have the coronary scan for calcium. Everyone thinks they have no coronary plaque and that they have no heart disease, but they have never had a calcium scan or genetic expression test for atherosclerosis. Many, many people who have been told they don't have heart disease are shocked when they get their results. Coronary calcium is something that, while not harmful in itself, can estimate the degree of atherosclerosis as it forms after coronary plaque has been present for some time. If anyone wants a URL for reading about the calcium score, let me know.

In my case, I got a score of 34. The number can go into the 1000's. Even though my number was low and 75% of the men my age have higher scores, he doctor prescribed a low dose statin, which I haven't taken yet. It was pravastatin 10 mg that has a low risk, but still I have concerns. The point is, if you have a non-zero score, you have some plaque. My cholesterol is 146 with HDL of 50, LDL of 80+, so I don' know what hey think my number should be. Fact is if your LDL is above 70 (very low) they prescribe statins for males my age (65). Also, if your LDL is below 70 and you have a calcium score above 100, they prescribe statins.

One other thing- they don't worry about blockages of plaque unless they are 50%. If you are 49%, you will have a false sense of security. Even catheters aren't accurate as they can't check everywhere, plus they can't quantify your plaque. Thallium (nuclear) stress tests are even worse, with many false positives and false negatives. You can have a 65% blockage that gets missed.

So calcium score tests and genetic expression tests are the only accurate ones. (Don't ask me to explain the gene expression test). There is a cost behind these tests and doctors may not want to put these costs into the cost of healthcare, so they are prescribed for "suspected" heart disease. I bet the doctors all get their tests done. I know many of them take statins (males) as a precaution and/or aspirin. My opinion is that if you have atrial fibrillation, you have a higher probability of heart disease. I really don't believe there is such a thing as "lone afib. I think they just haven't found the cause for those they diagnosed that way.

My 2 cents.

petey

Heart disease will kill you before

Bottom of my post should say "Heart disease will kill you before the afib we OVER-worry about."

Also note that calcified plaque is more stable then newer soft plaque. So calcium is good and bad. Bad because it indicates plaque and good because it stabilizes some of the plaque. None is better, but as you age you're gonna get some, particularly if you are a male and live a long time. Unstable plaque is the kind that is more likely to break off and cause stroke or heart attack.

Factoid: 75% of cholesterol you have is produced by the liver. Statins interfere with the liver's ability to produce cholesterol.

petey

I am 63 year old male. Thank you petey for your comments.

Something else to consider:

coumadin interferes with the metabolism and function of Vitamin K by inhibiting the enzymes needed to produce Vitamin K This drug can produce excessive bleeding and does produce progressive widespread calcification of arteries and the aorta.

A clinical study from Rotterdam, Holland revealed a correlation between long term adequate Vitamin K2 intake and a lower incidence of calcification of the wall of the aorta. Arteries with no plaques have a 20 to 50 fold increase in Vitamin K2 concentration when compared to arteries with arterial plaques. The high K content arteries were noted to be more flexible[7] and elastic than arteries lacking K2.

pandor7: Good point. It is one of the reasons why I am glad to be on a NOAC. MK7 vitamin K is something many take to slow/prevent calcification. Here is a website where you can plug your calcium number in to find out your percentile ranking for your age. You want to do what you can to slow the progression. If you plug in age 73 with your number, you will see you would be right in the middle. So taking a statin would be a good idea in your case (check with your cardiologist). If you are on Coumadin, you can up your vitamin K as long as you keep it steady (don't vary) and you get tested frequently at first to see how your INR goes. petey

If you live in Texas your insurance will cover a "simpler" calcium CT scan as opposed to a 64 slice CT scan.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/11/16/7414/heart-testing-bill-signed-perry-required-unnecessary-tests-critics-charge


Petey - are you familiar with the different types?

opsyn

Two years ago I had 50% blockage. Don't know what it is now.
I do take Vit K. My carotids are age appropriate. Some plaque but
not bad, not enough to do anything about. I have a family history
of bad hearts.

The 64 slice scan completes in 5 heartbeats. You hold your breath a shorter time and it gives you 83% less radiation. It is really fast. If you are older and male, radiation is less of an issue (affects them less) and heart disease is more of an issue (leading cause of death for men).

While getting the scan doesn't "improve" health, it does change treatment, namely statins. Half of heart attacks happen to people with cholesterol of 180 or less. The idea that people have to get symptoms before they get a scan seems dumb to me. Symptoms mean you are pretty far into heart disease. Let's face it: having afib us your probability you have heart disease.

I don't care if I have to pay $250. Money isn't an issue and I save lots on not eating red meat.

Machine I had:

http://www.gehealthcare.com/dose/media/6038/2009_10_-_discovery_pet_ct_690_lightspeed_vct_xt_insert_-_fv.pdfS

LightSpeed VCT (Volume Computed Tomography) : exposure time- 1.9 seconds. Radiation: 6.1 mSv

petey

I meant "ups" your probability...

Dr's are sometimes DUMB Most everyone that has any kind of heart symtoms and they are over 65 should have a Coronary artery test of some kind.
IMHO

opsyn,

Here is a link to 64-slice CT scan advantages:

http://www.wellmont.org/Medical-Services/Radiology/64-Slice-CT-scanner.aspx

It sounds a lot better than traditional CT scanners.

Petey -
More than likely almost all of us have plaque build up in our arteries and the answer from the medical community is : to take statins to bring down the cholesterol no matter what the level is. So, why I should even go for a calcium CT scan. I sort of know the outcome and the remedy. I can just start to take something like Red Rice Yeast and Niacin to bring down my cholesterol and LDL repectively without going to a doctor to ask for statin. Or just go to my PCP and ask for statins. I hope you see what I am saying.

If you, as a poster child of HEALTHY eating had a calcium score of 37, then my score has to be much higher , LOL. Right?

Have a great day,
Scott

I wanted to know my score so I would have a sense of how much of my money I should spend now versus saving for my old(er) age.

I had no idea they were going to tell everyone to take statins (at least, middle age and older men).

I used to take Niacin pre-afib. Tell me about this red rice yeast. Is there any science behind it?

petey,

I am sure you have searched the Red Yeast Rice yourself. There have been lots of studies about it. Here is one:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/711114

By the way, in the above link, they talk about Pravastatin, which your doctor wanted to give you. It is one of the safest statins.

I can tell you that it really works. Even my PCP recommended to me 2 years ago when my cholesterol was at 209. He said most his patients take it and they have great results without any side effect. Of course, he did not know I already knew about the Red Yeast Rice for cholesterol. I took it for 3 months before my next blood test. My cholesterol went down to 175. Then, I stopped taking it.

I treat Red Yeast Ricet like taking Lipitor. I make sure my liver enzymes do NOT get elevated. Yes, it is natural but it still affects the liver.

Also, I guess it was okay for you to go for the calcium test since you have not had an ablation and as a result so much radiation. But, at this point, I even don't want to get a dental x-ray. I am afraid I will glow in the dark and scare people off on the trails at night :-) Now, the good thing is the hair on my chest have come back and fully recovered. Good sign? I don'r know :-)

Scott

Scott: I did finally research Red Yeast Rice:

http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/red-yeast-rice

"Confusingly, the answer is both. One of the most important ingredients in red yeast rice is monacolin K. It's also known as lovastatin, the active ingredient in the prescription drug Mevacor [a statin]."

"So on one hand, red yeast rice is a traditional remedy that helps lower cholesterol. On the other, the pharmaceutical manufacturer of Mevacor argues that it owns the rights to the ingredient lovastatin."

Pravastatin: My doctor wanted me on the lowest dose (10 mg). He said there is no urgency to take it.

petey

RYR acts the same as a statin to me. Bad muscle ache.
petey IMHO you should not start statins at this point in your life.
Just me thinking out loud.
Read Dr Sinatra's book on Cholesterol.