Anyone ever get cardio / vascular screening to see if you've vascular calcification?.

[Skeptix]

If so, what kind if screening did you get. Looks like my insurance covers it so why not? My aim is for my insurance Co. to start paying back for all those years of premiums!

[drmind]

No experience but found this:

How is vascular calcification detected?

Coronary Calcium Score is a simple screening test that uses a low radiation CT (computed tomography) scan without any injected dye (contrast material) to find plaque in the arteries supplying blood to the heart. The higher the calcium score, the higher the risk of angina, heart attack or other problems.

Also read an ECHO can detect calcium as well but is not considered reliable to detect future problems with it.

All above are Google driven info. I see a cardiologist in December for an ECHO and will ask him about what test is/are best. Will also check with my kidney doctor whom I see on Monday. Hes very knowledgeable and honest with information. Best

Waiting to hear from others.

[Skeptix in reply to drmind]

Cheers, thanks.

It does look like the CT is best. I wonder how effective it is without the dye?

My dad had a heart attack when he was 50 (8 years younger than me) and I was a smoker on and off since my late teens.

All in all, with CKD, it'd be an idea to have a look-see, methinks.

[jodaer in reply to Skeptix]

I had a Carotid Duplex Ultrasound, a Cardio Echo and Doppler Report and a Bilateral Lower Extremity Venous Duplex Ultrasound, a Bilateral Lower Extremity Arterial Duplex Ultrasound. I'm not sure how a CT scan would work for this. Mine were all normal.

My doctor told me that the heart failure that comes from a chronic condition is not clogged arteries but that the heart actually just wears out.

[Skeptix in reply to jodaer]

Thanks. I gather the CT is the dog's cahoonas of tests, the focus being on deposits on the walls of the vascular system.

The cardio failure most associated with CKD chronic is vascular calcification, I gather. It doesn't look like you can remove it if it's there but if there was a serious build up somewhere then preventive action could be taken I imagine (stents, bypass?)

Better to know than not I say!

[userotc in reply to Skeptix]

Personally I think you'd need to be sure about preventative action if VC is found. Otherwise you'd just worry!

[drmind in reply to Skeptix]

I read that the dye was not necessary and its not usually used. However, I would decline it be used for whatever reason if they wanted to do so. Years ago, a very good gastro doctor was adamant when he sent me for a CT scan insisting over and over again that they do not use any contrast dye and I was at a decent CKD range then. Good luck with getting this and keep us posted.

[horsie63 in reply to drmind]

Because I have Graves Disease (hyperthyroidism) I can not under any circumstances have the dye.

[Jayhawker in reply to Skeptix]

I’ve had this done as part of the transplant eligibility testing. They repeat it with me once a year while I’m waitlisted. I’m not sure what the error variance is on this test though.

Jayhawker

[citruskayaker in reply to Skeptix]

I've read that contrasting dyes can be bad for your kidneys. Beware.

[Bassetmommer NKF Ambassador]

I had and ECHO and other cardiac tests done in prep for transplant. All totally covered.

[jodaer]

Is vascular calcification the same as atherosclerosis?

[Sophiebun11 in reply to jodaer]

No they are two different things. You can have calcification from atherosclerosis, but you can also have calcification without atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis is plaque from fat, cholesterol, or calcium; Calcification is calcium plaque. Hope that makes sense.

[jodaer in reply to Sophiebun11]

It does, thanks. It also shows why different kinds of tests. Another question, why are you and others more worried about the calcium plaque that the other kind?

[Sophiebun11 in reply to jodaer]

I'm not worried about it : ) Skeptix has posted about it several times so I've replied, that's all. It effects End Stage CKD patients as well as diabetics. Atherosclerosis increases as CKD progresses if you have it. It usually starts in your teens and builds over a lifetime even if you don't have CKD. Plant based diet will help with that, there's a hereditary link as well, but lifestyle has a major effect.

[jodaer in reply to Sophiebun11]

Thanks, that makes things a lot clearer to me. I'll ask my doctor about the calcification.

[Darlenia in reply to Sophiebun11]

Yes, you're right. CT scans are used to detect vascular calcification. Unfortunately, diabetes is the primary driver of the condition, and it's mostly diabetics that wind up with ESRD. The condition affects not only the heart, but also the arteries below the knees (hence amputations), etc. Of particular concern are the arteries in the area where a kidney is transplanted. If there is stiffening and vascular calcification there, then there will be no transplant. It's a major concern to that population. Anybody who is a diabetic will hear about the concern at the time they visit a transplant center. They have more hurdles to cross than most others.

[Sophiebun11 in reply to Darlenia]

That make sense they wouldn't be a good candidate for transplantation with renal artery disease.

[Sophiebun11]

A CT scan is the way it was done at the cardiology office I worked at.umms.org/ummc/health-servic...

[Marvin8]

If non-dye CT calcium tests were that easily interpreted and reliable, every doctor would be prescribing them. They don't. If I were you, I'd first want a cardiopulmonary stress test (chest electrodes, treadmill, mask). That'll give a really good idea if there are heart/lung issues, and there are numerous side benefits because they'll give you your VO2 max, proper exercise ranges, tell you how well your heart/lungs are doing...ie...practical stuff. Lots of value and usually cheaper than the other more invasive tests. Next level up would be ultrasound, echo, CT, MRI, etc. Each level of tests informs the next higher level of tests. I'd leave it up to your doctor. Do you have symptoms? I get winded unusually easily during exercise, so I'm going for my first cardiopulmonary (metabolic stress test) stress test in a few weeks. I'm looking forward to it and hoping it'll provide some answers.

[Darlenia in reply to Marvin8]

Agree. It's important to start at the least invasive level. For best outcomes, scans will use dye - dye is hard on kidneys. In the case of vascular calcification, it's heavily influenced by high glucose levels. This particular form of vascular disease is responsible for limb amputations, blindness, erectile dysfunction, etc. So, being proactive and taking steps to control (even eradicate) diabetes to the extent possible is a good path to take to go in my opinion.

[Darlenia]

It's probably most important to keep blood sugars within normal limits. Vascular calcification is largely glucose driven. It's definitely a problem for diabetics, not so much other folks.

[ntsgls11]

Yes. My cardiologist ordered an Echo test and nuclear scan. Result showed moderate cakcifications of aortic and thoracic valves. Very common with ckd patients especially if T2 diabetes is present. I seem to have CAD, CKD, hypertension and T2D. 4 conditions in competition to see which eventually kills me. Taking wagers here in Surprise, AZ, USA.

🤔

[horsie63 in reply to ntsgls11]

This is what my CT scan with no dye showed: Moderate atherosclerotic calcification of the normal caliber abdominal aorta and iliac arteries. I'm supposed to get a echo but they said I didn't need to do the stress test. I don't have diabetes but am taking meds for blood pressure.

[Darlenia]

You may want to research further. Research is increasingly aware and implicating glucose in the calcification process. I'm linking only one report and it's old but it popped up first. There are probably dozens more. Anyway, this is the paradigm all diabetics face - how to reduce sugars when many fruits and veggies are increasingly produced with higher sugar content to appeal to contemporary tastes. The glycemic index is important in that regard. Vascular calcification is seen a lot in those you see in malls riding in wheelchairs with amputated legs, etc. There's a generally a family history of such outcomes as diabetes, particularly T2D, runs in families. Sure, nondiabetics may also wind up with blindness, and amputations but it's much rarer. ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161...

[Darlenia]

True. Everyone is susceptible - particularly smokers, overweight individuals, etc. No doubt about it. There are also different types of calcification categories one can fit into such as arterial calcification, medial calcification (which affects diabetics) and, who knows, perhaps others. I'm simply saying that if you add in high sugar numbers - your risk goes way up because high glucose enhances calcification. I guess it's like baking a cake - with diabetic related calcification, glucose is an ingredient that contributes significantly to the final product. And I assume that's probably why one is lectured when sugar numbers are sky high and promptly put on medication. This said, I'm not a doctor, so you might want to discuss the glucose and calcification connection with your team. I know my hubby, who is a T2D diabetic, was told by his cardiologist and his transplant center that diabetes plays a serious role in the condition of one's blood vessels everywhere, including those inside kidneys. (His dialysis center reported almost all there were diabetics. Today, after a transplant, his sugar numbers are monitored very closely.) I just hope everyone takes matters in hand whenever possible. And, I trust that your journey ahead is smooth and stable.

[whats]

As if it wasn't all confusing enough, there's this kind of new research that shows that intense exercise increases calcium plaques, leading researchers to wonder about the relation between different kinds of plaque and heart disease since exercise has been proven so beneficial.

[whats in reply to whats]

Whoops, here's a link: dailymail.co.uk/health/arti...

[horsie63 in reply to whats]

Holy crap. I used to do ultramarathons (50ks) and of course that required lots of miles in training. I stopped in 2020 but maybe the damage was done?

[Blackknight1989 in reply to horsie63]

I would believe and I was trained (but a long time ago) that normal running, not a series of say 100 yard sprints, but jogging like you allude to should be “strenuous” exercise at least not in the category that would be considered “excessive” or unusually “intense” exercise. In addition with your event being “ultra” marathons I’d say the training runs weren’t excessively intense for you. My bet is the benefit far outweighed any harm (if any) done…just my opinion!