A Borderline Risk and a Reluctant Patient: Using a Coronary Artery Calcium Score to Decide About a Statin for a 54-Year-Old Woman With a 6.8% Ten-Year Risk
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
NRP/555: Adult and Geriatric Management I
Week 2 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The patient is a composite written for a model paper.
Ms. T., a 54-year-old high school principal, comes for follow-up of her lipid panel: total cholesterol 232 mg/dL, LDL cholesterol 148 mg/dL, HDL cholesterol 52 mg/dL, triglycerides 160 mg/dL. Her blood pressure averages 132/84 mm Hg on home readings. She does not smoke and does not have diabetes. Her 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease by the pooled cohort equations is 6.8%. She says, "I don't want to take a pill for the rest of my life unless I really need it." This paper explains how we decided.
Placing Her in a Risk Category
The 2018 cholesterol guideline classifies 10-year risk in adults aged 40 to 75 without diabetes and with LDL cholesterol from 70 to 189 mg/dL as low, under 5%; borderline, 5% to under 7.5%; intermediate, 7.5% to under 20%; and high, 20% or more (Grundy et al., 2019). Ms. T.'s 6.8% is borderline. In this range, the guideline suggests that risk-enhancing factors may favor a moderate-intensity statin after a clinician-patient risk discussion.
Looking for Risk Enhancers
Risk-enhancing factors include a family history of premature ASCVD, persistently elevated LDL cholesterol of 160 mg/dL or more, chronic kidney disease, metabolic syndrome, conditions specific to women such as preeclampsia or premature menopause, inflammatory diseases, ethnicity-related risk, persistently elevated triglycerides and, if measured, elevated lipoprotein(a), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or apolipoprotein B (Grundy et al., 2019). Ms. T. reports that she had preeclampsia with her first pregnancy, and her triglycerides are mildly elevated. Her father had a heart attack at 64, which does not meet the premature threshold of under 55 for male relatives.
Why a Calcium Score
With one clear risk enhancer, a statin could be reasonable, but Ms. T. prefers to avoid one unless needed. The guideline states that when the decision about a statin is uncertain, measuring coronary artery calcium is reasonable to refine risk for adults at intermediate risk and for selected adults at borderline risk (Grundy et al., 2019). I explain the test: a noncontrast CT scan of the heart, with low radiation, that measures calcified plaque in the coronary arteries.
She did not want to be talked into a statin or talked out of one; she wanted a better number to decide with.
What the Score Means
The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis followed 6,814 adults free of cardiovascular disease and found that coronary artery calcium was strongly and gradedly associated with 10-year ASCVD risk, independent of standard risk factors, across age, sex and ethnicity; 10-year event rates in those with a score of zero were almost all below 5%, while those with scores of 100 or more were consistently above 7.5% (Budoff et al., 2018). The guideline uses similar cut points: a score of zero supports withholding a statin in the absence of higher-risk conditions, a score of 1 to 99 favors a statin, especially after age 55, and a score of 100 or more, or at the 75th percentile or higher, favors starting one (Grundy et al., 2019).
Her Result
Ms. T.'s coronary artery calcium score is 86, which is above the 75th percentile for a woman her age. This places her risk higher than the pooled cohort equations suggested and favors a statin.
The Decision
I show her the result and what it means: plaque is present in her coronary arteries, and her risk is higher than her calculated number implied. She agrees to start atorvastatin 20 mg daily, a moderate-intensity statin, aiming for an LDL reduction of 30% to 49%. I explain common side effects, especially muscle aches, and that most people tolerate statins well.
Blood Pressure
Her home average of 132/84 mm Hg meets the definition of stage 1 hypertension. For adults with stage 1 hypertension and a 10-year ASCVD risk under 10%, the primary prevention guideline recommends lifestyle changes, with drug therapy considered if risk is 10% or higher or if blood pressure does not reach goal (Arnett et al., 2019). Her calculated risk is under 10%, so we focus on lifestyle for now: reducing sodium, increasing physical activity, limiting alcohol and following a heart-healthy diet, with home readings reviewed in three months. The calcium score raises her risk estimate, which I will weigh if her blood pressure does not improve.
Lifestyle as Foundation
The prevention guideline emphasizes a heart-healthy diet, at least 150 minutes of moderate physical activity a week and weight management for all adults (Arnett et al., 2019). Ms. T. walks occasionally; we set a goal of walking 30 minutes five days a week.
Why Not Other Tests
Other tests can refine risk, such as lipoprotein(a), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or apolipoprotein B, which the guideline lists as risk enhancers when measured (Grundy et al., 2019). The calcium score was chosen because it measures disease in her own arteries rather than a risk marker in her blood, and because MESA showed it predicts events with the same strength across sexes and ethnic groups (Budoff et al., 2018). A lipoprotein(a) test, done once in life, would still add information and is included in her next panel.
Radiation and Cost
A calcium score uses a low radiation dose, similar to a mammogram, and is often not covered by insurance. Ms. T. paid a modest self-pay fee after I confirmed the cost with the imaging center. For patients who cannot afford it, the decision would rest on risk enhancers and discussion alone.
If the Score Had Been Zero
Had the score been zero, the guideline would support deferring a statin in the absence of diabetes, smoking or strong family history, with reassessment in five to ten years (Grundy et al., 2019). Ms. T. said she would have been relieved, but she accepted the result she got. Showing her both possible outcomes before the test made the result easier to accept.
Adherence
Many patients who start statins stop within a year, often because of muscle symptoms they attribute to the drug or because the benefit is invisible. I told Ms. T. to call rather than stop if she has aches, since a lower dose or a different statin often works, and showed her the calcium score image as a reminder of why she is taking it.
Monitoring
A fasting lipid panel in 6 to 12 weeks will assess response and adherence. Liver enzymes are checked at baseline; routine monitoring of muscle enzymes is not needed unless symptoms occur.
Conclusion
Ms. T.'s 10-year risk of 6.8% placed her in the borderline range, where a history of preeclampsia and elevated triglycerides favored a statin but her preferences called for more certainty. A coronary artery calcium score of 86, above the 75th percentile for her age, showed higher risk than calculated, and she chose a moderate-intensity statin. Her stage 1 hypertension will be managed with lifestyle changes first, with the calcium score informing the next decision.
References
Arnett, D. K., Blumenthal, R. S., Albert, M. A., Buroker, A. B., Goldberger, Z. D., Hahn, E. J., Himmelfarb, C. D., Khera, A., Lloyd-Jones, D., McEvoy, J. W., Michos, E. D., Miedema, M. D., Muñoz, D., Smith, S. C., Jr., Virani, S. S., Williams, K. A., Sr., Yeboah, J., & Ziaeian, B. (2019). 2019 ACC/AHA guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Circulation, 140(11), e596-e646. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000678
Budoff, M. J., Young, R., Burke, G., Carr, J. J., Detrano, R. C., Folsom, A. R., Kronmal, R., Lima, J. A. C., Liu, K. J., McClelland, R. L., Michos, E., Post, W. S., Shea, S., Watson, K. E., & Wong, N. D. (2018). Ten-year association of coronary artery calcium with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). European Heart Journal, 39(25), 2401-2408. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehy217
Grundy, S. M., Stone, N. J., Bailey, A. L., Beam, C., Birtcher, K. K., Blumenthal, R. S., Braun, L. T., de Ferranti, S., Faiella-Tommasino, J., Forman, D. E., Goldberg, R., Heidenreich, P. A., Hlatky, M. A., Jones, D. W., Lloyd-Jones, D., Lopez-Pajares, N., Ndumele, C. E., Orringer, C. E., Peralta, C. A., . . . Yeboah, J. (2019). 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol. Circulation, 139(25), e1082-e1143. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000625
How this NRP 555 Week 2 example is structured
The NRP/555 Week 2 work usually addresses hypertension and lipid management. This paper follows the guideline's steps for primary prevention, calculates and categorizes risk, looks for risk enhancers, uses a test to refine an uncertain decision and ends with a plan the patient accepts. Students search this week as NRP 555 Week 2, NRP555 Wk 2 or NRP/555 Wk 2; all three are the same assignment.
NRP/555 Week 2 questions, answered
What does NRP/555 Week 2 usually ask for?
Many sections present a hypertension or lipid case and ask for risk assessment, guideline-based treatment decisions, drug choice and monitoring.
What is borderline ASCVD risk?
A 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk of 5% to less than 7.5% by the pooled cohort equations, a range in which risk-enhancing factors and shared decision making guide statin use.
How does a coronary artery calcium score help?
In adults at intermediate or selected borderline risk, a score of zero identifies lower risk and may support deferring a statin, while a score of 100 or more, or at the 75th percentile or higher, favors starting one.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.