The closest such test is the Coronary artery calcium scoring costs that approximately $150 and takes just a few minutes at a radiology or cardiology facility. Your GP Can refer you directly for the test but it is not medicare rebated.
The test is an indirect measure of the amount of atheroma of the coronary arteries - in other words, it indirectly measures the amount of plaque (furring) inside the coronary vessels. The plaque becomes calcified and so the amount of calcium in the coronary vessels is a measure of the amount of plaque in the coronary vessels.
The usual way to establish risk of future heart disease is by measuring the blood pressure, blood cholesterol, and then putting the figures into an algorithm along with risk factors such as age, smoking etc. This risk score is useful and should be done first - but the score is coarse, and the risk can be made more accurate using coronary artery calcium scoring.
There is a radiation dose involved of 1 to 2 mSV which is the same as the background radiation that we experience over the course of 1 year. It is not a huge dose but is worth knowing about.
What about having another heart test instead - such as a stress echocardiogram or CT Coronary angiography? The key difference is that these two look tests for areas of the heart where there is inadequate blood supply from coronary vesssels (flow -limiting areas). On the other hand, CT Artery calcium scoring just measure the amount of atheroma (plaques) and does not indicate if they are causing reduced flow.
The important point, though, is that most heart attacks are caused by thrombus forming on plaques and not by areas of reduced blood flow.
In other words, it would appear that CT artery calcium scoring is better than the other tests at identifying which patients are at greater risk of a heart attack. Given that the test is over more than 3 times cheaper than the other tests, this is good news!
The test is just another option available but is particularly useful for patient's whose risk of heart disease is not definitely high, not definitely low, but in the middle. I think the government should pay for this for patients in specific risk groups who are referred by their GP. Having said that, every patient is eligible to see their GP for standard risk-scoring which is a good start.
Report this post
You must be a HealthShare member to report this post.
to your account or
now (it's free).