The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
but to reassure people who who are in the situation that you described and with serial scanning they can check back in a few years and if there's still a low score or no real progression they know they have very little atherosclerosis inside and they can make the personal decision to continue to have a high particle count
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
something like a coronary artery calcium scan can be very beneficial in terms of differentiating risk moving forward
if someone has a high LDL particle number for a couple of years and they get a they get a coronary artery calcium scan and the score is zero you can essentially say to your risk of having a coronary event in the next 15 years is very small you know maybe 1%
if this patient had a negative calcium score which he did not but if he did I would have still recommended lipid-lowering therapy and/or modification of diet