kvenne,
Sounds like a commercial for Calcium Scoring, esp, when the author uses adjectives like "appears to" or "may be".The article didn't appear to contradict the widely held belief that it's the rupturing soft plaque causing the event, more the notion that amount of calcified plaque vs the amount of soft plaque was the better predictor. No one is arguing calcified plaque is a predictor and maybe even a better predictor of future MI. it's more of "what am I going to do differently to treat my patient with this information". The author seemed to be focused on scoring patients with high LDL for a "zero score" which would give them a "5 year risk insurance policy". I seriously doubt this will convince a doc to not treat the LDL/TGS if the patient returned with a score of "zero". Again, how will this information affect my treatment protocol. And so the dilemma continues.
Webster
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
