Recently I have been advised that this test has the potential of being dangerous. Is this true? Obviously if you need one, you have to go through it, but wondering about the new CT Heart Scans that are out now. Though it may not be on our insurance plans, I am wondering if it's a better tool, being non invasive - - any thought?

Angioplasty in itself is invasive and there's not any way around that yet. It is dangerous but when it's needed you feel lucky that it can be done. I had angioplasty and then a stent was placed to keep the artery propped open.
Angiogram which I what I think you are really talking about is dangerous, but given the risk of walking around with a blocked artery I would rather take the risk. As you mentioned the CT scans are looking really good to me as far as diagnosing plaque built up in the arteries. I did see the Oprah show when a Dr was showing Oprahs CT scan and claimed that she had the arteries of a 20 year old. That is difficult for me to believe given her weight over the years. On that same show there were women chosen from the audience who also had the test done and at least one woman needed intervention to correct a blockage. I also saw Matt Lauers on the Today show. He was beginning to have some early signs of plaque building up if I remember correctly. I believe it was also mentioned that he had a family history of heart disease. It's very interesting to see the pictures.

The thing one must consider very carefully is the likelihood of blockage. I think the risks of angiogram are even worse than WILLDO paints...closer to 1% chance of a life threatening occurrence, BUT if you think the odds are very good you have angina, then a percutaneous procedure WILL be done anyway.

I was so certain that I had angina, even to the classic symptom that walking into a cold wind hurt my chest, that the LOWEST risk procedure for me was an immediate angiogram. I even skipped the small but very real threat from a stress test and went right to angiography. Had I had an MRI and/or CT scan, my outcome would have been the same, i.e., angiography>angioplasty>stent.
So, FOR ME (and I stress that), the immediate angiogram saved time, money, worry and the aggravation of fighting with an insurance company if necessary...plus seeking out the appropriate cutting edge technology (where to begin??)

So someone with an estimate of 10% need for eventual intervention might be well to do EVERYTHING he can to avoid an angiogram but for someone with the 90% surety of vascular disease it's the perfect test. Problem is ascertaining the odds that one's pain IS ischemic angina.

To say it yet another way: Those who benefit from the newest technology are therefore only those who get to escape the catheter.

Personally, I FEEL I should have another angiogram (2 years later) but I'm resisting it for precisely the reason of that small but real risk.