Source item
Open original source ↗I advocate for Calcium CT as a widespread heart screening tool bc it has the lowest hurdle to adoption - $150, 15 mins, no doc referral and catches 80-90% of heart issues. However, the angiogram w dye is a more comprehensive look inside the arteries and thus more accurate in diagnosing blockage - BUT can cost > $1000, is more invasive & requires a referral. To be clear, I did both after my Calcium CT showed minimal plaque. But 95% of the country is walking around with no scans - the HUGE win would be to get the vast majority of the population to take the simple Calcium CT scan starting at age 35 - like a mammogram for the heart. Would save tens of thousands of livers per year!!
Quoted context
These are the quoted author’s words.
@jaltma @altcap I think you likely mean the ‘coronary calcium scan’ – that’s the one that @altcap recommends. The CCTA is a different test that uses contrast dye – it’s far superior but more expensive. https://t.co/4VJXNTL324
zackkanter ↗