Anyone have one of these heart scans that detect calcium deposits in arteries? I went to my hospital today for MRI and the tech was telling me about it. $49 paid up front, sounds like a pretty good idea to me if it has real value as a diagnostic test.

I am 67 with no history of heart problems other than high blood pressure but family history of heart disease for mom and dad. Report gets sent to primary MD for review though I plan on seeing a cardiologist fairly soon for heart checkup as I have never done that before though I see my primary MD for yearly checkup. Last heart test was an echocardiogram I had during hospital stay in 2013 after unplanned massive blood transfusion that showed no problems.

Thanks for any thoughts on this diagnostic procedure.

https://www.amitahealth.org/heartscan#risk

"AMITA Health’s $49 heart scan measures the amount of calcium deposit in the arteries of your heart. The higher the amount, the more plaque there is, the greater your risk of coronary heart disease or a heart attack. The heart scan is painless and noninvasive."

Best advice here is to check with your cardiologist. He will let you know if you need it. There are better diagnostics. The resident cardiologist should be along shortly and give you his two cents.

Thanks. I don't have cardiologist yet and I know there are better diagnostics but often insurance won't approve payment for such without good reason/symptoms.

Know your score. Get the scan. You are looking at the actual disease with the scan

From Ivor Cummins channel.
https://youtu.be/b194_UbON1k

If it's the same one I had it was literally seconds, just shoot through the MRI tube. Detected some mild build up.

My Dad had a ultrasound done looking for build-up in major arteries. Is this what y'all are talking about?

Do it.

Just had this done last week. Took about 5 minutes. Then the PA gave me the results immediately. I think it's worth it especially with your family history. If there is a problem it can be treated. Early detection is good. Or like in my case you may be surprised by a very low score of zero. Now hardening of the arteries is something I don't have to worry about. She said no need to re-test for at least 5 years. My cost was $129 so you seem to be getting a good deal. I would do it.

Do it with that family history. Guy I work with had 99% blockage and had a heart attack a month after being given the all clear after a stress test.
Fortunately he survived and has made a full recovery. He also had family history.

quote:

Originally posted by SigSentry:
Know your score. Get the scan. You are looking at the actual disease with the scan

From Ivor Cummins channel.
https://youtu.be/b194_UbON1k

+1 on CAC score

quote:

Originally posted by Lord Vaalic:
If it's the same one I had it was literally seconds, just shoot through the MRI tube. Detected some mild build up.

Yeah, that is how it was described to me. After spending 45 minutes in MRI tube today that should be a breeze.

Thanks for the replies fellow forum members, much appreciated. Sounds like this is worth getting and I will be scheduling one soon. Wife also wants to get it done. Her dad died suddenly at home of massive heart attack as did mine. I have known far too many people who suddenly had heart problems.

quote:

Originally posted by Rebel-22:
Just had this done last week. Took about 5 minutes. Then the PA gave me the results immediately. I think it's worth it especially with your family history. If there is a problem it can be treated. Early detection is good. Or like in my case you may be surprised by a very low score of zero. Now hardening of the arteries is something I don't have to worry about. She said no need to re-test for at least 5 years. My cost was $129 so you seem to be getting a good deal. I would do it.

Congrats on the great result!

quote:

Originally posted by grumpy1:
Anyone have one of these heart scans that detect calcium deposits in arteries? I went to my hospital today for MRI and the tech was telling me about it. $49 paid up front, sounds like a pretty good idea to me if it has real value as a diagnostic test.

I am 67 with no history of heart problems other than high blood pressure but family history of heart disease for mom and dad. Report gets sent to primary MD for review though I plan on seeing a cardiologist fairly soon for heart checkup as I have never done that before though I see my primary MD for yearly checkup. Last heart test was an echocardiogram I had during hospital stay in 2013 after unplanned massive blood transfusion that showed no problems.

Thanks for any thoughts on this diagnostic procedure.

https://www.amitahealth.org/heartscan#risk

"AMITA Health’s $49 heart scan measures the amount of calcium deposit in the arteries of your heart. The higher the amount, the more plaque there is, the greater your risk of coronary heart disease or a heart attack. The heart scan is painless and noninvasive."

Talk to your cardiologist first. Listen to no radiology tech or a company trying to make money. Heart guidelines change rapidly.

And, know your 10-year risk of heart disease or stroke. It can be done, using this CV Risk Calculator.

Then, make your decision based on discussion with your cardiologist & the American Heart Association / American College of Cardiology guidelines.

Who should get the "heart scan"? If you have a low 10-year risk (less than 6%), for example, you shouldn't even be thinking about getting one done.

My cardiologist sent me for the test a year ago. Insurance and Medicare did not cover it, so it cost me over $100. They said that a high score means your heart muscle is losing flexibility and you need more tests.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by grumpy1:
Anyone have one of these heart scans that detect calcium deposits in arteries? I went to my hospital today for MRI and the tech was telling me about it. $49 paid up front, sounds like a pretty good idea to me if it has real value as a diagnostic test.

I am 67 with no history of heart problems other than high blood pressure but family history of heart disease for mom and dad. Report gets sent to primary MD for review though I plan on seeing a cardiologist fairly soon for heart checkup as I have never done that before though I see my primary MD for yearly checkup. Last heart test was an echocardiogram I had during hospital stay in 2013 after unplanned massive blood transfusion that showed no problems.

Thanks for any thoughts on this diagnostic procedure.

https://www.amitahealth.org/heartscan#risk

"AMITA Health’s $49 heart scan measures the amount of calcium deposit in the arteries of your heart. The higher the amount, the more plaque there is, the greater your risk of coronary heart disease or a heart attack. The heart scan is painless and noninvasive."

Talk to your cardiologist first. Listen to no radiology tech or a company trying to make money. Heart guidelines change rapidly.

And, know your 10-year risk of heart disease or stroke. It can be done, using this CV Risk Calculator.

Then, make your decision based on discussion with your cardiologist & the American Heart Association / American College of Cardiology guidelines.

Who should get the "heart scan"? If you have a low 10-year risk (less than 6%), for example, you shouldn't even be thinking about getting one done.

With all due respect Q, why not get one? For a couple hundred bucks, IMO it's worth the peace of mind.

Certainly, a risk assessment is prudent, and this all should be done under the guidance of a cardiologist, but...why not?

Of course, there is the risk of excess radiation, but given the potential knowledge it's a risk worth taking.

quote:

With all due respect Q, why not get one? For a couple hundred bucks, IMO it's worth the peace of mind.

Certainly, a risk assessment is prudent, and this all should be done under the guidance of a cardiologist, but...why not?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I agree with Q. There is a reason Medicare does not cover the test. It covers practically everything else. Wait to see what Jstill says, he is a cardiologist. Q is a physician I value his opinion in this department. There are lots of tests you can get, but they are worthless without someone with a medical background to interpret them. In most states for example you need a doctor's order for lab tests.

For $49 the test looks like a good choice for me unless it is known to be basically a scam. My hospital is non profit and I would be very surprised it that was such with their reputation. I do plan to eventually see a cardiologist but part of the appeal to me is I don't need a cardiologist to take the test and get the results. They will send the results to my primary MD if I want. That saves me at least a couple hundred bucks not having to see a specialist if I don' want too. Last physical exam my primary MD did not think I needed to see a cardiologist based on my history and lab results and my risk score was in the high single digits. My family history has always been a concern to me though.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

With all due respect Q, why not get one? For a couple hundred bucks, IMO it's worth the peace of mind.

Certainly, a risk assessment is prudent, and this all should be done under the guidance of a cardiologist, but...why not?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are lots of tests you can get, but they are worthless without someone with a medical background to interpret them.

Oh, I couldn't agree more. I'm not suggesting that everyone and anyone get one willy nilly without any follow-up or guidance. But, the OP is 67 and he ain't getting any younger. Hell, I'm 54 and had it done just for the aforementioned peace of mind.

I can't speak to whether or not Medicare will cover it as I don't deal with billing in any way, shape, or form.

Like many things in this day and age, things are changing rapidly and medicine is not immune to that. The technology is there to tell you whether or not you are at risk, far more definitively than the Framingham Risk Stratification, so why not use it?

There has been controversy about this test for over 15 years at least.
I’ve had patients with severe atherosclerotic coronary artery disease with zero calcium scores; and patients with high calcium scores with no significant narrowing of the arteries.
When I last studied this closely (2014-15) it seemed to be useful for reclassifying low risk people to higher risk—which is ONLY useful for indicating further testing, and for helping decide whether to take statins or not.

I have never ordered one. I’ve dealt with quite a few patients who had them done. Our guideline was that if a patient showed up with a coronary calcium score, they should get a functional study (stress echocardiogram or nuclear stress test) to determine if they had significant stenosis, in which case a coronary angiogram was done.

I would recommend you discuss this with the cardiologist you see.

Why not just get it done? Lots and lots of errors, both false positives and false negatives, which leads to unnecessary anxiety and unnecessary testing.

Despite many years of looking for a noninvasive, safe, effective and cost-effective screening test for the presence of coronary artery disease, there is still no good test that can be recommended for the general public. I spent years studying the literature and dealing with this issue as director of preventive medicine for a very large multi specialty group practice with an extremely high reputation for quality and integrity. Later while in Hawaii I was the lead cardiologist for a national cardiovascular health guidelines group for this organization.

Oh, I haven’t had the test done myself. But if your cardiologist wants you to have it, then go ahead.

A much more accurate way of ruling out coronary artery disease is a coronary CT angiogram, which does not involve a catheter, but does involve injecting dye, and a lot more radiation than in a coronary calcium test. If the CTA is normal, your arteries are clean; but if there is calcium, then it isn’t accurate enough to determine degree of stenosis.