Right, I’m working my way through papers on EBCT generally, and I’m impressed. I’m very impressed. In engineering circles, “if you don’t measure it, it don’t get fixed”. Of course your measurement method is pivotal – and it looks like we’ve been dicking around with Framingham methods for far too long; this technology is stunning – you don’t even need the biochemistry or root cause appreciation – the math speaks for itself! Have a look at the following excerpt, detailing the difference between slow yearly changes in EBCT score versus fast (<15% delta versus >15%) – why the hell didn’t I know about this before??
An excellent description of the predictive power is below:
http://www.newportbodyscan.com/ebt-coronary-calcium-scoring-guide/
More detail on this shocker study at: http://www.thefatemperor.com/blog/2015/4/3/cholesterol-ldl-cac-progression-illuminates-fundamental-truths-lchf2015
You’re going to hear more about this my friends, here’s an intro to the Widowmaker Movie – watch it!:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr7mzsKulXE
Quote from paper – could I agree more? Hardly:
Coronary calcium scanning should become the initial evaluation for patients who present with chest pain, especially younger persons with atypical symptoms. When no coronary calcium is found, the probability of finding coronary artery stenosis is nearly 0.0% for women and 0.7% for men, and the overall probability of finding an abnormal myocardial perfusion scan is nearly 0.0%. Coronary calcium scoring should become the gatekeeper for costly imaging studies and coronary angiography.
Coronary calcium should be measured annually in all asymptomatic individuals with elevated calcium scores since those with scores that increase more than 15% annually are at increased risk for coronary events and require a change in their treatment plan.
