Aa
Aa
A
A
A
Close
Avatar universal

Young, no risk factors, high arterial plaque

So... I'm 35, female, 115 lbs, 17% body fat.
I do at least an hour of cardio 4+ times per week.  
I eat oatmeal for breakfast everyday, and lots of fiber throughout the day.
My blood pressure and cholesterol levels have always been on the low side of normal.
I eat very little fat (I'm lactose intolerant, so I consume very little milk).
I just had a heart MRI, only because I wanted my husband (41 years old, family history of heart disease, bad eating habits) to have one done, and he wanted us to do it together.
My husband was clear.  I, on the other hand, have more plaque in my brain and heart than 95% of people my age.
The levels aren't imminently dangerous, just really high for someone my age.
Any thoughts on what might have caused this/what to do about it?
4 Responses
Sort by: Helpful Oldest Newest
Avatar universal


Here is a web site for more information....
http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/features/atherosclerosis-your-arteries-age-by-age
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Sorry, I was wrong.  It was a CT scan, not an MRI.  I had it mixed up.
The calcium score was 7 and there was "soft plaque" in three arteries.
The score of 7 is low, it's just that at 35 it seems like there shouldn't be any at all.  The radiologist and doctor are pretty reputable and they both went over the results with us together.
My cholesterol and triglycerides are both great. LDL:HDL ratio is 1:1 (total cholesterol is 178); triglycerides are 48.
I just can't figure out where the soft plaque and calcification came from in the first place.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal
Atherosclerotic plaque can indeed be quantified by an MRI, which is different from the calcium score derived from a CT scan. However, the problem with these kind of imaging tests in asymptomatic people, is that the significance of findings is very difficult to interpret and they frequently lead to further, sometimes invasive, tests, which may not be neccessary and come with some risk. That is why the medical community discourages the use of whole body MRI scans and such in asymptomatic people. You are now left in a quandary. I would not advise a coronary CT scan if you are asymptomatic, as your chance of having a significant coronary lesion is extremely low given your female gender and age. This is unless you have other circumstances. A cardiac CT exposes you to a radiation dose and is best avoided unless medically indicated.
It is very difficult to know what to make of the finding of more plaque than "95% of people of your age", given that 35 year old females have an extremely low rate of atherosclerotic coronary disease. I wonder where these "normal ranges" were derived from? I would start with an independent second review of your MRI images by a reputable radiologist.
Helpful - 0
Avatar universal

Perhaps I am misinformed but I thought that a CT scan was used to get a calcium score and not an MRI.  That said were these tests run by your physician?  Calcium results only tell you where the calcium is deposited.  What was your calcium score?   You will need to do an angiogram to see if there is reduction in blood flow.  This is why many of us have had a CT angiogram.  Calcium score and visulaiztion of blood flow.  Hope this helps.
Helpful - 0

You are reading content posted in the Heart Disease Forum

Popular Resources
Is a low-fat diet really that heart healthy after all? James D. Nicolantonio, PharmD, urges us to reconsider decades-long dietary guidelines.
Can depression and anxiety cause heart disease? Get the facts in this Missouri Medicine report.
Fish oil, folic acid, vitamin C. Find out if these supplements are heart-healthy or overhyped.
Learn what happens before, during and after a heart attack occurs.
What are the pros and cons of taking fish oil for heart health? Find out in this article from Missouri Medicine.
How to lower your heart attack risk.