BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Calcification has been associated with carotid plaque stability; however, an acceptable in vivo method to define plaques based on this component remains to be developed. The purpose of our study was to compare calcified and noncalcified volumes of carotid artery culprit symptomatic plaques with asymptomatic plaques using multidetector computed tomography. METHODS: We identified 102 patients with > or =50% stenosis using NASCET criteria by multidetector computed tomography angiography between January 2004 and May 2006, which included 35 symptomatic (stenosis: 82.0+/-11.9%) and 67 asymptomatic patients (stenosis: 79.4+/-10.8%). Total plaque volume, noncalcified plaque volume, calcified plaque volume, and calcified/total ratio were measured for the 102 index plaques causing stenosis. RESULTS: In a model including age, stenosis, and cardiovascular risk factors, calcified plaque volume/total plaque volume was significantly inversely associated with the occurrence of symptoms (P=0.012; odds ratio, 0.047; 95% CI, 0.004 to 0.511). There was a notable overlap in the calcified plaque volume/total plaque volume ratio between 0% and 45% for symptomatic and asymptomatic plaques. However, calcification >45% of the total plaque was very specific: 97.1% (34/35) for absence of symptoms (sensitivity: 28.4% 19/67). No significant association between total plaque volume, noncalcified plaque volume, or calcified plaque volume and symptomatology was found. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of carotid plaque calcification, rather than absolute volume, is associated with stability in patients with stenosis. Specifically, for a subset of patients, plaque calcification >45% of the total volume may represent a clinically useful cutoff. The carotid plaque calcium ratio, determined by multidetector computed tomography volume measurements, may help noninvasively risk stratify patients with asymptomatic stenosis.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Calcification has been associated with carotid plaque stability; however, an acceptable in vivo method to define plaques based on this component remains to be developed. The purpose of our study was to compare calcified and noncalcified volumes of carotid artery culprit symptomatic plaques with asymptomatic plaques using multidetector computed tomography. METHODS: We identified 102 patients with > or =50% stenosis using NASCET criteria by multidetector computed tomography angiography between January 2004 and May 2006, which included 35 symptomatic (stenosis: 82.0+/-11.9%) and 67 asymptomatic patients (stenosis: 79.4+/-10.8%). Total plaque volume, noncalcified plaque volume, calcified plaque volume, and calcified/total ratio were measured for the 102 index plaques causing stenosis. RESULTS: In a model including age, stenosis, and cardiovascular risk factors, calcified plaque volume/total plaque volume was significantly inversely associated with the occurrence of symptoms (P=0.012; odds ratio, 0.047; 95% CI, 0.004 to 0.511). There was a notable overlap in the calcified plaque volume/total plaque volume ratio between 0% and 45% for symptomatic and asymptomatic plaques. However, calcification >45% of the total plaque was very specific: 97.1% (34/35) for absence of symptoms (sensitivity: 28.4% 19/67). No significant association between total plaque volume, noncalcified plaque volume, or calcified plaque volume and symptomatology was found. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of carotid plaque calcification, rather than absolute volume, is associated with stability in patients with stenosis. Specifically, for a subset of patients, plaque calcification >45% of the total volume may represent a clinically useful cutoff. The carotid plaque calcium ratio, determined by multidetector computed tomography volume measurements, may help noninvasively risk stratify patients with asymptomatic stenosis.
Authors: Cheng Hong; Christoph R Becker; U Joseph Schoepf; Bernd Ohnesorge; Roland Bruening; Maximilian F Reiser Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gregory W Albers; Louis R Caplan; J Donald Easton; Pierre B Fayad; J P Mohr; Jeffrey L Saver; David G Sherman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-11-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M Miralles; J Merino; M Busto; X Perich; C Barranco; F Vidal-Barraquer Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2006-09-18 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: Jennifer L Hunt; Ronald Fairman; Marc E Mitchell; Jeffrey P Carpenter; Michael Golden; Tigran Khalapyan; Megan Wolfe; David Neschis; Ross Milner; Benjamin Scoll; Anita Cusack; Emile R Mohler Journal: Stroke Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Timothy F Kresowik; Dale W Bratzler; Rebecca A Kresowik; Marc E Hendel; Sherry L Grund; Kellie R Brown; David S Nilasena Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Morteza Naghavi; Peter Libby; Erling Falk; S Ward Casscells; Silvio Litovsky; John Rumberger; Juan Jose Badimon; Christodoulos Stefanadis; Pedro Moreno; Gerard Pasterkamp; Zahi Fayad; Peter H Stone; Sergio Waxman; Paolo Raggi; Mohammad Madjid; Alireza Zarrabi; Allen Burke; Chun Yuan; Peter J Fitzgerald; David S Siscovick; Chris L de Korte; Masanori Aikawa; K E Juhani Airaksinen; Gerd Assmann; Christoph R Becker; James H Chesebro; Andrew Farb; Zorina S Galis; Chris Jackson; Ik-Kyung Jang; Wolfgang Koenig; Robert A Lodder; Keith March; Jasenka Demirovic; Mohamad Navab; Silvia G Priori; Mark D Rekhter; Raymond Bahr; Scott M Grundy; Roxana Mehran; Antonio Colombo; Eric Boerwinkle; Christie Ballantyne; William Insull; Robert S Schwartz; Robert Vogel; Patrick W Serruys; Goran K Hansson; David P Faxon; Sanjay Kaul; Helmut Drexler; Philip Greenland; James E Muller; Renu Virmani; Paul M Ridker; Douglas P Zipes; Prediman K Shah; James T Willerson Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-10-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: H A Marquering; C B L M Majoie; L Smagge; A G Kurvers; H A Gratama van Andel; R van den Berg; P J Nederkoorn Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Danijela Vukadinovic; Sietske Rozie; Marjon van Gils; Theo van Walsum; Rashindra Manniesing; Aad van der Lugt; Wiro J Niessen Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: M J van Gils; D Vukadinovic; A C van Dijk; D W J Dippel; W J Niessen; A van der Lugt Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Andor W J M Glaudemans; Riemer H J A Slart; Alessandro Bozzao; Elena Bonanno; Marcello Arca; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Alberto Signore Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-03-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: S Rozie; T T de Weert; C de Monyé; P J Homburg; H L J Tanghe; D W J Dippel; A van der Lugt Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-04-22 Impact factor: 5.315