For those looking up the CT Calcium issues: I always like to look up these things, helps find things I should or should not consider. While I normally don’t encourage blanket trusting of internet things, I found this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAEW93_HlAo); the guy seems to know what he’s talking about and offers both pros and cons (always a good sign) regarding reasons to get a CT Calcium score. If you’re considering getting it done, you may want to watch, listen, evaluate and decide whether it’s a good fit for you IF your reason is concern about a potential heart attack. Note: I’m not a doc, have no training, I’m like most of you, concerned about what tests are worthwhile; please, talk with your doc, get the facts, and make your own decision.
Thanks @tomh for this reference. My doctor did approve me for one of these on the basis of being a Type 1 diabetic. As a quick dive into the internet wormhole shows, there’s lots of discussion about the value of this test on its own. From my very cursory look at the youtube discussion, it seems like this is a great test if you are in some kind of pain / heart trouble and none of the other tests show any issue.
If you’re not feeling heart-limited, a high plaque result on this test may not be a signal for blockage, and a low plaque result may not be a signal that all is okay (because there is hard and soft plaque).
So complicated….
Does anyone know if the test is invasive? Is it done with some kind of xray equipment?
Thanks,
e
I’ll be in the clinic getting the scan Monday AM, will let you know. I’ve been told it’s non invasive but will have to wear a hospital gown for the scan.
@bostrav59 From the quick research I did, it appears to be a standard CT without contrast, so would be considered non-invasive. It’s supposed to be pretty quick, with more time taken preparing than doing.
I’ve done this test three times now. It’s non-invasive and takes < 15 minutes. It’s a CT scan.
Yep, non-invasive. Since insurance normally doesn’t cover, it usually has a reasonable price for out of pocket. Mine was ~ $100 4 years ago.
I had a CT scan this morning. No fasting required. They require no caffeine or nicotine before the scan. I went in with a post breakfast BG of 120.
Totally non invasive total duration of appointment was about 10 minutes plus 10 minutes in waiting room. I left all my clothes on including my shoes and shirt and 4 electrodes were placed on my chest area, reaching under the shirt. Left my Dexcom sensor and pod on my upper left arm. Emptied my pockets.
Quick and easy, laying on your back with your chest inside a fairly wide scanning x-ray tube that allows enough room to put your arms above your head for the scan. Zero claustrophobic feel to it.
I did mine at an imaging center inside a moderately sized urban hospital. They had multiple scanners and a steady stream of patients. My appointment was procured with about 2 weeks lead time, easier than scheduling most medical appointments. It looks like scanning and imaging is big business.
EDIT ADDED 12/9/25: Got the CT Scan results via “MyChart” about 8 hours later…zero calcium which is what we were hoping to see.
“It looks like scanning and imaging is big business.”
Chuckle! Exactly!!
CherylRae
CT and MRI have pretty much a $0/use cost; the costs are fixed regardless of how much or how little the scanner is used.
The costs are also significant, maybe $50,000 for a used model to $2,000,000 for a new one (the first figure from a web site trying to sell me a CT scanner, the second from the Google hot air balloon). Then a cost for training of operators; a significant and high risk cost ('cause once they are trained 
and per-year maintenance.
So the more you use it the less the cost, to the provider, per scan. A simple, direct, inverse proportion.
CT and MRI could be very useful for a lot of people but when they get oversold; the docs get told how much money they can make by buying this single piece of equipment for half a PowerBall and how much money they can make…
If you are out there listening and have “used CT operator” or (better) “used MRI operator” on your resume go out and sell yourself; it’s big business for all the golfers so let us make it our own, too.
Ct scans also aren’t also handed out Willy nilly. I sat in an emergency room in excruciating pain for hours until my kidney function labs came back (with a ruptured appendix) before they’d do the ct scan due to their potential risks. If you read up on them, ct scans are not “preventative medicine” and should be considered “emergency medicine” instead
Which is higher risk, dental x-ray or ct scan? I routinely have to tell my dentist “No, I do not want an x-ray.” They like to do a suite of x-rays once a year snd I’m guessing most patients just go ahead and get them done. I think a CT scan once in a lifetime is lower risk than routine dental x-rays. .
No, that’s not right. CT scan for CAC is much higher radiation exposure (1 to 5 msv) than dental X-rays (.005 msv). And the radiation exposure from that CT scan can vary widely depending on the machine. I asked for an apoB blood test instead of considering CT scan for just that reason. I don’t remember the results, but it was low enough that my dr no longer advocated for statin use.
If I decide to get a CAC done in the future, I would check on the radiation exposure from the place doing the test (it can vary from 1 to 5 msv).
Seems like another go-to for the medical profession. My endo said there was this really great test for cardio-vascular disease risk while he was trying to sign my up for statins, so I said, “Whatever.” (My wife was not being particularly supportive at that moment.)
My insurance company deferred. The test would not be paid for unless I had a well recorded evidence of CHD. They still said, at the lab, that I could do it and they would do me a deal; yet another car salesperson. Mucho Maas; sometimes that’s how I feel.
I’ really like this too; not sure what the chances are of getting it in England on the NHS. My friend, type 1 for the last 20 years, had it done when she became unwell, and they picked up some narrowing - she has a very careful diet and runs every day, so it came as a surprise. They said it was down to going out of range over the years. She would never have known this issue was there until potentially it was too late.
This has filled me with concern as I am into my 38th year of type 1. I wish they offered this sort of thing as standard after so many years of living with diabetes.
Same as the US apparently, pretty much zero unless you are symptomatic. You might have a better chance if you have private medical insurance (same as the US), but probably not. You can always pay yourself (same as the US); probably about the same cost too although typically for tech stuff 1$=1£ (e.g. price of an iPhone…) Unlike the US you can get the price up-front in the UK by going to a hospital that offers it (e.g. Nuffield if you are in the Midlands), the US we have to deal with unwillingness to give a straight price until they’ve established that we don’t have insurance…
General health is much more important. HbA1c is done routinely (remember the fuss about the badly calibrated etc HbA1c machines); those are important. “Cholesterol” is done as a routine test but you should be getting the test done every year by your GP; if that flags an issue then maybe CHD might be a concern.
Are you on statins? That’s a big fave of the US docs for diabetics; I once had a to-and-fro with my GP, who was an extremely good GP (intelligent and very capable) on taking statins or not. Generally my docs end up admitting defeat
That said there is something to remember: Even though some problem correlates well with T1 (cardiovascular disease does) that does not mean that some generally applicable techinque, like CT scans for calcification, will. What helps other people does not necessarily help us.
There’s what seems to me to be a good review paper here:
I suggest asking your GP because of this (quoting from the above):
The UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD), one of the most robust analyses of CVD risk that includes data from more than 7400 T1DM patients with a mean age of 33 ± 14.5 years and mean DM duration of 15 ± 12 years, reported that CVD events occurred about 10 to 15 years earlier in T1DM patients than in the matched non-diabetic control group.
That along with other statistics from the GPRD may mean that the range of tests available to you are far greater than those available in the US. We don’t have a USRD!