BACKGROUND: It has been argued that lumen diameter of the common carotid artery should be taken into account in analyses on common carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) and cardiovascular risk. Yet, no published report has dealt with this issue in detail. METHODS: In the Rotterdam study baseline ultrasound images of the carotid arteries were made. During follow-up of 8.2 years, 656 new acute myocardial infarctions (AMI) occurred. Regression analysis was used to study myocardial infarction relation to right (or left) common CIMT with various adjustments for right-, or left-sided lumen diameter. Lumen adjustment was made by (1) a simple adjustment in a regression equation; (2) using the CIMT-to-lumen ratio; (3) using arterial mass, calculated as ({pix[(lumen+near wall CIMT+far wall CIMT)/2]2}-[pix(lumen/2)2]). RESULTS: AMI disease risk increased per standard deviation increase in common CIMT (0.177 mm): hazard ratio (HR) 1.28 (95% CI, 1.19 to 1.37). When lumen diameter was taken into account the HR was 1.26 (95% CI, 1.18 to 1.35). The HR for the CIMT-to-lumen ratio was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.11 to 1.27) and for arterial mass 1.28 (95% CI, 1.19 to 1.37). Additional analyses indicated that the CIMT-to-lumen ratio at lower CIMT levels appears to reflect arterial remodelling rather than risk of cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that using the CIMT-to-lumen ratio yields the weakest associations. Other approaches for adjustment for common carotid lumen diameter do not affect the magnitude or precision of the association of common CIMT to risk of AMI. When the interest is in risk relations the preference goes to either CIMT or arterial mass measurement.
BACKGROUND: It has been argued that lumen diameter of the common carotid artery should be taken into account in analyses on common carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) and cardiovascular risk. Yet, no published report has dealt with this issue in detail. METHODS: In the Rotterdam study baseline ultrasound images of the carotid arteries were made. During follow-up of 8.2 years, 656 new acute myocardial infarctions (AMI) occurred. Regression analysis was used to study myocardial infarction relation to right (or left) common CIMT with various adjustments for right-, or left-sided lumen diameter. Lumen adjustment was made by (1) a simple adjustment in a regression equation; (2) using the CIMT-to-lumen ratio; (3) using arterial mass, calculated as ({pix[(lumen+near wall CIMT+far wall CIMT)/2]2}-[pix(lumen/2)2]). RESULTS: AMI disease risk increased per standard deviation increase in common CIMT (0.177 mm): hazard ratio (HR) 1.28 (95% CI, 1.19 to 1.37). When lumen diameter was taken into account the HR was 1.26 (95% CI, 1.18 to 1.35). The HR for the CIMT-to-lumen ratio was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.11 to 1.27) and for arterial mass 1.28 (95% CI, 1.19 to 1.37). Additional analyses indicated that the CIMT-to-lumen ratio at lower CIMT levels appears to reflect arterial remodelling rather than risk of cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that using the CIMT-to-lumen ratio yields the weakest associations. Other approaches for adjustment for common carotid lumen diameter do not affect the magnitude or precision of the association of common CIMT to risk of AMI. When the interest is in risk relations the preference goes to either CIMT or arterial mass measurement.
Authors: Joseph Yeboah; Kim Sutton-Tyrrell; Mary Ann Mcburnie; Gregory L Burke; David M Herrington; John R Crouse Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2007-08-21 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: P Krishna Kumar; Tadashi Araki; Jeny Rajan; Luca Saba; Francesco Lavra; Nobutaka Ikeda; Aditya M Sharma; Shoaib Shafique; Andrew Nicolaides; John R Laird; Ajay Gupta; Jasjit S Suri Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2016-12-10 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Christoph Sinning; Arne Kieback; Philipp S Wild; Renate B Schnabel; Francisco Ojeda; Sebastian Appelbaum; Tanja Zeller; Edith Lubos; Edzard Schwedhelm; Karl J Lackner; Eike S Debus; Thomas Munzel; Stefan Blankenberg; Christine Espinola-Klein Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-02-02 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Joseph F Polak; Quenna Wong; W Craig Johnson; David A Bluemke; Anita Harrington; Daniel H O'Leary; N David Yanez Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2011-06-14 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Rebecca M Kappus; Christopher A Fahs; Denise Smith; Gavin P Horn; Stomatis Agiovlasitis; Lindy Rossow; Sae Y Jae; Kevin S Heffernan; Bo Fernhall Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Rachel P Wildman; Alicia B Colvin; Lynda H Powell; Karen A Matthews; Susan A Everson-Rose; Steven Hollenberg; Janet M Johnston; Kim Sutton-Tyrrell Journal: Menopause Date: 2008 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Samar R El Khoudary; Rachel P Wildman; Karen Matthews; Rebecca C Thurston; Joyce T Bromberger; Kim Sutton-Tyrrell Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2012-08-18 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Laura L Schott; Amy H Kao; Amy Cunningham; Rachel P Wildman; Lewis H Kuller; Kim Sutton-Tyrrell; Mary Chester M Wasko Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2009 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.681