Discussion about this post

User's avatar
The Skeptical Cardiologist's avatar

Ryan,

Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

I've been putting together an article which defends the use of CAC against the major criticisms I see online. Here is what I had written regarding the radiation:

"The radiation exposure from CAC scans has decreased substantially in the last decade and is now very low, averaging 1 mSV. This is less radiation than the 1.2 mSv my St. Louis patients receive annually from natural exposure.

Risks of radiation doses below 100 mSv have been described by US and international radiation protection organization as meaningless because long-term effects are either too small to be observed or non-existent.

For comparison purposes, a typical mammogram uses 0.4 mSV, a chest X-ray uses 0.1 mSV. Two cardiac tests that are widely and often inappropriately utilized in the US , coronary angiography ( 5-10 mSv) and myocardial perfusion imaging stress tests (12-14 mSV) expose patients to 10 times the radiation that CAC scans do.

In addition, with CAC scans there is no risk associated with accessing the venous or arterial system and no risk of contrast reactions. There is little to no value in repeating a non-zero CAC scan so the maximum lifetime exposure for most will be 1 mSV."

I hope that you were not Googling while driving or riding a bike to work!

My major concern with CAC usage is inappropriate downstream testing.

But I believe "the risks of CAC are minimal when the test is ordered and acted upon by an enlightened physician." Such a physician could be a progressive preventive noninvasive cardiologist or a brilliant family doctor like yourself.

p.s. I'm a big fan of your Substack!

Expand full comment
The Skeptical Cardiologist's avatar

Interesting. Matt Budoff wrote a piece in 2020 that

evaluated "the population level prevalence of zero CAC and examine the 20-year trends of zero CAC and burden of cardiovascular risk factors, in the Beach Cities of Southern California/Los Angeles (LA) county vs other regions of California, from 2000 to 2020. The Beach Cities of LA have been recently classified as a “certified Blue Zone community” through implementation of community-based public health initiatives focused on well-being and cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. These policies are reflective of the combination of lifestyle patterns and environmental changes, that are observed in rare longevity hotspots/blue zones around the world, mainly coastal areas such as the island of Okinawa in Japan, the peninsula of Nicoya in Costa Rica, the island of Ikaria in Greece, and the Mediterranean island of Sardinia [15]. The phenomenon of blue zones, where people live longer, healthier and happier lives have been identified in specific geographical regions worldwide and are characterized by the highest concentrations of healthy centenarians [16]."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666667720300982

Lots of limitations to this study but they did find a higher prevalence of Zero CAC in the beach counties of LA. (which they deemed a blue zone)

There was less smoking, diabetes, and obesity in the LA beach counties.

I'm hoping my San Diego beach community of Encinitas is also a blue zone! Seems like there are less fat people here and I almost never encounter a smoker. In addition , tons of people are constantly out walking, biking, surfing, running and playing pickle ball.

Of course, it is entirely possible that the healthier people migrate to the beach towns and not that the beach town environment makes them healthier.

Thus, this is MOOP

Dr. P

Expand full comment
16 more comments...

No posts