For the last year I have been monitoring my heart age using the QRISK calculator (which is the one I understand NHS professionals use). It calculates my heart age consistently within a couple of years of my chronological age of 78.
Today I discovered the NHS Heart age calculator, and inputting the same date produces a heart age of 95. Quite alarming. Why such a difference?
Not Medical advice, opinions and suggestions only,
Both the QRISK and NHS calculator are outdated, it's a tragedy the NHS still use this, bordering on negligence.
If you suspected you had cancer would you go to the doctor, and the doctor start measuring your blood pressure and asking what you eat, no you would be sent for a scan to see what is going on with remote detectors.
The same for heart disease, a CAC scan completely identifies all the calcium in your coronary arteries, and is the most accurate predictor of future events.
QRISK and the NHS calculator are based upon the Framingham studies from 6 decades ago, even the doctors who did the Framingham studies say they are out of date and need updating.
Arterial age is also a contentious topic, so I would take that with a pinch of salt.
My opinion would be to get a CAC scan.
Then go here,
Arterial age is meaningless. Future risk is the most important factor, and where do you go from your current situation.
mesa-nhlbi.org/MESACHDRisk/...
astrocharm.org/calculator-w...
these are better,
The best yearly CAC, and CCA-IMT with an expert in this field can tell you exactly what is going on.
Did you know if you improve the health of your arteries the calcium in your arteries will sky rocket, as they harden and become low level inflamed plaque, which is good.
Also most Cardiologists after sending you for a CAC scan and starting statin therapy will not send you for a follow up CAC scan as they do not know how to interpret the results.
Only one comment in that the QRISK calculator is qualified as follows
This calculator is only valid if you do not already have a diagnosis of coronary heart disease (including angina or heart attack) or stroke/transient ischaemic attack.
And it's based upon outdated scientific methods.
Q risk is rubbish! My Q risk was 4 ( very good) no risk factors at all .... However 4 months later it was determined I had 100% LAD blockage and very lucky not to have had cardiac event!
The QRISK isn't good at assessing risks of heart attacks from vasospastic angina or others types of angina non obstructive coronary arteries. Nor good at identifying the differences in risks due to sex and ethnicity.
These calculators are not accurate in the least and only to be used in people with no heart or such like problems. Really why would an online calculator concern you which is clearly not a one fits all. If you feel good that is your real indicator of good health.
Inspiris Resilia vs other aortic valves 
In-hospital vs at-home post-AVR support?
Myocarditis vs. Heart Attack
Catheter ablation: private vs NHS
Ross vs Mechincal valve
