I get confused with calcium scoring because it only measures the hard calcified plaque and not the amount of soft vulnerable plaque beneath it, which is the dangerous stuff. I read that some ethnic groups show a low calcium score, yet have LOTS of vulnerable plaque. It will be interesting to see what an expert says because the resources on the internet are confusing over this and it appears there are two camps of trusting these results, or not.
I have had CT cat scan 64 slice and the totsal score was over 1000. That is not unexpected because I have 72% blockage of the ICX and 100% blockage of the LAD. The calcium that resides within the lining layers of the vessel when excessive can cause stenosis (narrowing of the lumen) and impede blood flow. Also, the calcium within the layers is soft plaque that can rupture into the lumen and cause a heart attack...most heart attacks happen due to this occuring and the hard plaque within the lumen account for occlusions and ischemia can damage heart cells.
Your score 24 is insignificant. Treatment if necessary would to control your cholesteral, maintain appropriate body weight, exercise, etc.
I believe the CT scan is over done on an individual basis. It would be appropriate for somebody who has a family history of CAD, but not appropriate when the evidence is strong of having a high calcium such as myself....I did not nor did my cardiologist learn anything that was not highly assumed...didn't need confirmation! Also, when there is no evidence of CAD it wouldn't justify the test. One in between these two extremes and a family history of CAD, then there may be some justification.