EMSC
Well-known member
No idea. There has been no discussion with me about the specific proteins or etc... that may have been the culprit. Simply that it was soft/non-calcified plaques that caused it.
Monitoring Cardiac Health
- Thread starter EMSC
- Start date
I checked in with my cardiologist last month and got another nuclear stress test, with normal results of coronary artery blood flow. This was the test that diagnosed Stuart Winchester. I insisted that they keep me on the treadmill for the full 12 minutes. My heart rate was 152 at the end and I sucked wind for awhile but not as long as at Mammoth and Snowbird after high effort skiing.
This picture was in the doctor's office.
Note circled items. EMSC should request a Lp(a) test since it's genetic, and highly likely IMHO given his age and lifestyle.
This picture was in the doctor's office.
Note circled items. EMSC should request a Lp(a) test since it's genetic, and highly likely IMHO given his age and lifestyle.
Last edited:
EMSC
Well-known member
Interestingly enough I'd never seen a cardiologist (nor been recommended to see one) until the actual heart attack.
Probably don't need to think about it immediately since they removed the plaque and put in the stents. But I would agree that over time it'll be something I probably will need to test for pretty regularly once I get a year or two out from 'the event'.
Interestingly enough No heart attacks, strokes, or etc in my family among that list of relatives. Ironically one of my older brothers who is overweight, drinks way too much and eats terribly has a fairly poor calcium test score, but no soft plaque issues apparently. He eats somewhat better now (past year or so), but still not exactly great. That's only since his calcium score came back and his GP forced him to see a cariologist.
Heck my father lived to his early 80's and even at that age his BP, cholesterol scores, etc... were near perfect with no meds of any kind at any point in life. He passed from refusing to get colorectal cancer treatments (long story), not from heart issues. And he ate and drank like my older brother above.
So while it is a very probable cause of my attack and my son will have to get checked throughout his life, I had no inkling and was never recommended for a lipoprotein(a) test - only recommended to get the calcium plaque test which I scored very, very low on (0,0,0,12).
It's just been a complete shock to me and everyone who knows me including all of my extended family. But at ~20% of people having too high a score I have no idea why this test isn't recommended screening for pretty much every person over say 45 or 50. Even with just ~20% of the population that is a LOT of annual heart attacks/deaths occurring which are wildly expensive for the insurance companies (and gov't plans too).
That's the only reason I'm pushing the test now for EMSC, to find out if that will be necessary for his son. I do not know if EMSC's "soft plaque" issue is directly related to lipoprotein(a).
From same source above:
Last edited:
Here's an answer to the question of why the test isn't widespread . . . yet.
March 2025
Lipoprotein(a): An update on testing and treatment - Harvard Health
High levels of Lp(a)—a fatty particle similar to LDL cholesterol—may double or triple a person's risk of a heart attack. Lp(a) testing is becoming more common now that five prom...
www.health.harvard.edu
A fatty particle that circulates in the bloodstream, lipoprotein(a) is similar to LDL cholesterol but more dangerous. High levels of Lp(a), as it is commonly called, can double or even triple a person's risk of a heart attack. It's considered a common culprit in heart disease that occurs at a young age. So why do so few people know about it?
Until recently, most guidelines didn't recommend testing for Lp(a) — but with good reason. Your genes determine your Lp(a) value. Eating and exercise habits have virtually no effect on the levels in your bloodstream. Plus, there were no effective treatments to lower Lp(a), which also elevates the risk of stroke and aortic stenosis (a thickened, stiff aortic valve).
Now, with five promising therapies to lower Lp(a) in development, the landscape is changing. Here's the latest advice and information about Lp(a).
Lp(a) testing trends
International consensus groups recommend one-time Lp(a) testing for everyone. In Europe, such testing is routine. But in the United States, the first official endorsement for Lp(a) testing didn't appear until 2024, from the National Lipid Association."Recent data show that only 0.3% of people received Lp(a) screening between 2012 and 2019," says Harvard Medical School associate professor Dr. Michelle O'Donoghue, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital. Also, about half of those tests were ordered by a very small number of health care providers, she adds.
But Lp(a) testing should soon become more widespread, for several reasons. First, the tests are now covered by most insurers in most states. Second, even though targeted therapies to lower Lp(a) are not yet on the market, people with high levels (see "Lp(a) readings: Check the units") may benefit from more intensive treatment to manage their overall risk of heart disease, says Dr. O'Donoghue. "This may include taking cholesterol-lowering drugs like statins, even if your LDL cholesterol is normal," she says. Low-dose aspirin is also being investigated as a possible therapy for preventing heart attacks in people with high Lp(a).
. . ."