NEW STUDY 🚨
If CAC is zero, higher LDL doesn’t seem to substantially increase risk from cardiac events
This needs to be retweeted 1,000 times so every common cardiologists can begin to “understand this phenomenon”
ja.ma/3BgZMf3
If CAC is zero, higher LDL doesn’t seem to substantially increase risk from cardiac events
This needs to be retweeted 1,000 times so every common cardiologists can begin to “understand this phenomenon”
ja.ma/3BgZMf3
Who would have thought the idea of actually measuring disease with CIMT/CAC/CCTA would produce better results than believing blowhards who profit off of surrogate marker testing ( like LDL )
Interestingly of those who had a zero CAC, those with a higher LDL were more likely to have positive CCTA
A few thoughts stand out hoping for commentary from @MaBMortensen @khurramn1 @Lipoprotein @ethanjweiss
@AngryCardio
0 CAC seems to normalize risk regardless of LDL
BUT!
LDL>190 had HUGE positive CCTA when CAC was zero
1) Was it stat sig?
2) is that possibly true FH?
@AngryCardio
0 CAC seems to normalize risk regardless of LDL
BUT!
LDL>190 had HUGE positive CCTA when CAC was zero
1) Was it stat sig?
2) is that possibly true FH?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
