3 ms·

I am considering whether to have a CT scan done of my heart. I am 35 yo and healthy, but have bad history of heart disease in my family. No current issues for m

I am considering whether to have a CT scan done of my heart. I am 35 yo and healthy, but have bad history of heart disease in my family. No current issues for me though. My doctor recommended I do the scan just to see if I have any plaque buildup, but is this not a lot of unnecessary radiation at a fairly young age? I hear it is like getting 1,000 x-rays done. Can anyone qualified chime in?

lostlogin 5y ago
Have a read up on what the dose is and what this equates to. It’s low, and importantly, the alternative tests are pretty invasive. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4789203/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4789203/
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
The FDA has a great page on the topic with citations to medical journals: https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/medical-x-ray-imaging/what-are-radiation-risks-ct https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/medical-x-ra... The short answer: > If you combine the natural risk of a fatal cancer and the estimated risk from a 10 mSv CT scan, the total risk may increase from 400 chances in 2000 to 401 chances in 2000. Your specific CT scan of the heart might be less than half of the 10mSv dose used in this example so the radiation risk is even lower.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  > fatal cancer Lot of non-fatal cancer out there, too.
superjan 5y ago
For plaque buildup they normally do a quick low resolution scan (to calculate an “agatson score”). I did not know by heart, but according to webmd.com it’s equivalent to 1 year background radiation. Pretty and high resolution images like the pumpkin above are possible but require more radiation. They should use the simplest scan that answers the doctor’s question. A good question to ask is ‘why’: if no treatment decision depends on the outcome of the scan, the downsides can easily outweigh the benefits. A healthy lifestyle is advisable no matter what the scan says. I am no doctor. I work on software for cardiologists.
- jliptzin 5y ago
  Thank you
pjerem 5y ago
Better get some X-Rays than staying with unknown and untreated desease. This could help you : https://www.nuffieldhealth.com/article/radiation-exposure-from-medical-scans https://www.nuffieldhealth.com/article/radiation-exposure-fr... CT scans are way more radiative than your classical X-rays but they are also way less radiative that anything that could be really dangerous. You are way more prone to major heart issues if it’s in your family’s genes and untreated than to have any issue with a ct-scan.
- jliptzin 5y ago
  Thanks, that does help
323 5y ago
If you are in US, one thing to consider is the massive over-prescription of medical tests in this country, due to legal reasons - avoid being sued for missing a problem. You might want to consult with a UK doctor for example to see if they also recommend a CT scan in your situation. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-gawande https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-...
PhantomGremlin 5y ago
I am considering whether to have a CT scan done CT is an absolutely amazing tool. The amount of health information produced is astounding. I had a CT done to follow up on an adenoma. As part of the evaluation of that scan, the MD noted something else that was easily treated but that could have been very serious in not too distant future (I'm being vague for personal reasons). Here are a few snippets from one of my reports: Normal heart size. Clear lung bases. No pleural or pericardial effusion. Remaining noncontrast liver, pancreas, spleen, and left adrenal glands appear normal aside from benign 1.7 x 2 cm right adrenal adenoma. No abdominal aortic aneurysm with mild circumferential atherosclerotic calcifications. So, e.g. the MD noted mild atherosclerosis as just one of his "incidental" findings. Good to know.

lostlogin 5y ago

Have a read up on what the dose is and what this equates to. It’s low, and importantly, the alternative tests are pretty invasive. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4789203/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4789203/

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

The FDA has a great page on the topic with citations to medical journals: https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/medical-x-ray-imaging/what-are-radiation-risks-ct https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/medical-x-ra... The short answer: > If you combine the natural risk of a fatal cancer and the estimated risk from a 10 mSv CT scan, the total risk may increase from 400 chances in 2000 to 401 chances in 2000. Your specific CT scan of the heart might be less than half of the 10mSv dose used in this example so the radiation risk is even lower.

dehrmann 5y ago
> fatal cancer Lot of non-fatal cancer out there, too.

superjan 5y ago

For plaque buildup they normally do a quick low resolution scan (to calculate an “agatson score”). I did not know by heart, but according to webmd.com it’s equivalent to 1 year background radiation. Pretty and high resolution images like the pumpkin above are possible but require more radiation. They should use the simplest scan that answers the doctor’s question. A good question to ask is ‘why’: if no treatment decision depends on the outcome of the scan, the downsides can easily outweigh the benefits. A healthy lifestyle is advisable no matter what the scan says. I am no doctor. I work on software for cardiologists.

jliptzin 5y ago
Thank you

pjerem 5y ago

Better get some X-Rays than staying with unknown and untreated desease. This could help you : https://www.nuffieldhealth.com/article/radiation-exposure-from-medical-scans https://www.nuffieldhealth.com/article/radiation-exposure-fr... CT scans are way more radiative than your classical X-rays but they are also way less radiative that anything that could be really dangerous. You are way more prone to major heart issues if it’s in your family’s genes and untreated than to have any issue with a ct-scan.

jliptzin 5y ago
Thanks, that does help

323 5y ago

If you are in US, one thing to consider is the massive over-prescription of medical tests in this country, due to legal reasons - avoid being sued for missing a problem. You might want to consult with a UK doctor for example to see if they also recommend a CT scan in your situation. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-gawande https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-...

PhantomGremlin 5y ago

I am considering whether to have a CT scan done CT is an absolutely amazing tool. The amount of health information produced is astounding. I had a CT done to follow up on an adenoma. As part of the evaluation of that scan, the MD noted something else that was easily treated but that could have been very serious in not too distant future (I'm being vague for personal reasons). Here are a few snippets from one of my reports: Normal heart size. Clear lung bases. No pleural or pericardial effusion. Remaining noncontrast liver, pancreas, spleen, and left adrenal glands appear normal aside from benign 1.7 x 2 cm right adrenal adenoma. No abdominal aortic aneurysm with mild circumferential atherosclerotic calcifications. So, e.g. the MD noted mild atherosclerosis as just one of his "incidental" findings. Good to know.