Coronary Calcium Scan vs CT Angiogram at 35. Which Makes More Sense?

I’m 35 with no known heart symptoms, but my grandfather died of a heart attack at 38, so I’m doing proactive cardiac screening.

Additional context:

• Overweight
• Elevated cholesterol
• No parent/sibling with early heart disease

I currently have a non-contrast coronary calcium scan scheduled in LA, but I’ll be in Thailand next month where I could instead get a CT coronary angiogram with contrast.

For those familiar with cardiac imaging:

• Given my risk factors, would you stick with the calcium scan or opt for the CT angiogram with contrast?
• Is the added detail of contrast worth it in someone my age?
• Any downside to doing the contrast study instead if it’s available and affordable?

Would appreciate thoughts from anyone with cardiology/radiology experience or personal experience with either.