Paul Saladino· MD
But if you have a calcium score of over 400, you're a high risk individual. Repeating the scan isn't going to add anything to that.
Verbal pushback — no audited source on record.
74
Loading…
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 if you have a calcium score of over 400, you're a high risk individual. Repeating the scan isn't going to add anything to that.
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.
I have a 49 year old who just scored 4,500. Right. So that, I mean, that to me is useful, right? So that takes us again, not going to ever be supported by clinical trials, but that takes us from, okay, well now we all agree that you should be on a at least statin for primary prevention, but maybe we want to be even more aggressive, right?
I also think there's probably some value in the extremes here. in say, I saw a patient recently who was in his fifties, early fifties, who had a calcium score of 1300, you know, asymptomatic primary prevention.
I we know that people who have a calcium score of 4,000 which by definition means they've got a shitload of calcium uh that that's a high risk and even if they don't have any soft plaque the risk is still high