BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the treatment of carotid atherosclerosis, the rate of stenosis and characteristics of plaque should be assessed to diagnose vulnerable plaques that increase the risk for cerebral infarction. We performed carotid black-blood (BB) MR imaging to diagnose plaque components and assess plaque hardness based on MR signals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three images of BB-MR imaging per plaque were obtained from 70 consecutive patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to generate T1- and T2-weighted images. To evaluate the relative signal intensity (rSI) of plaque components and the relationship between histologic findings and symptoms, we prepared sections at 2-mm intervals from 34 intact plaques. We then calculated the relative overall signal intensity (roSI) of 70 plaques to assess the relationship between MR signal intensity and plaque hardness and symptoms. RESULTS: The characteristics of rSI values on T1- and T2-weighted images of fibrous cap (FC), fibrosis, calcification, myxomatous tissue, lipid core (LC) with intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH), and LC without IPH differed. Symptomatic plaques were associated with FC disruption (P < .001) and LC with IPH (P < .05). The roSI on T1-weighted images was significantly higher for soft than nonsoft plaques. When the roSI cutoff value was set at 1.25 (mean of the roSI), soft plaques were diagnosed with 79.4% sensitivity and 84.4% specificity. The roSI was also significantly higher for symptomatic than for asymptomatic plaques. Soft and nonsoft plaques as well as symptomatic and asymptomatic plaques did not significantly differ on T2-weighted images. CONCLUSION: BB-MR imaging can diagnose plaque components and predict plaque hardness. This procedure provides useful information for planning therapeutic strategies of carotid atherosclerosis.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the treatment of carotid atherosclerosis, the rate of stenosis and characteristics of plaque should be assessed to diagnose vulnerable plaques that increase the risk for cerebral infarction. We performed carotid black-blood (BB) MR imaging to diagnose plaque components and assess plaque hardness based on MR signals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three images of BB-MR imaging per plaque were obtained from 70 consecutive patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) to generate T1- and T2-weighted images. To evaluate the relative signal intensity (rSI) of plaque components and the relationship between histologic findings and symptoms, we prepared sections at 2-mm intervals from 34 intact plaques. We then calculated the relative overall signal intensity (roSI) of 70 plaques to assess the relationship between MR signal intensity and plaque hardness and symptoms. RESULTS: The characteristics of rSI values on T1- and T2-weighted images of fibrous cap (FC), fibrosis, calcification, myxomatous tissue, lipid core (LC) with intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH), and LC without IPH differed. Symptomatic plaques were associated with FC disruption (P < .001) and LC with IPH (P < .05). The roSI on T1-weighted images was significantly higher for soft than nonsoft plaques. When the roSI cutoff value was set at 1.25 (mean of the roSI), soft plaques were diagnosed with 79.4% sensitivity and 84.4% specificity. The roSI was also significantly higher for symptomatic than for asymptomatic plaques. Soft and nonsoft plaques as well as symptomatic and asymptomatic plaques did not significantly differ on T2-weighted images. CONCLUSION: BB-MR imaging can diagnose plaque components and predict plaque hardness. This procedure provides useful information for planning therapeutic strategies of carotid atherosclerosis.
Authors: A Kampschulte; M S Ferguson; W S Kerwin; Nayak L Polissar; B Chu; T Saam; T S Hatsukami; C Yuan Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-11-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: H J M Barnett; D W Taylor; R B Haynes; D L Sackett; S J Peerless; G G Ferguson; A J Fox; R N Rankin; V C Hachinski; D O Wiebers; M Eliasziw Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-08-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Baocheng Chu; Annette Kampschulte; Marina S Ferguson; William S Kerwin; Vasily L Yarnykh; Kevin D O'Brien; Nayak L Polissar; Thomas S Hatsukami; Chun Yuan Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Alan R Moody; Rachael E Murphy; Paul S Morgan; Anne L Martel; G S Delay; Steve Allder; Shane T MacSweeney; William G Tennant; John Gladman; John Lowe; Beverley J Hunt Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-06-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Gerd Brunner; Jean Bismuth; Vijay Nambi; Christie M Ballantyne; Addison A Taylor; Alan B Lumsden; Joel D Morrisett; Dipan J Shah Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: S Narumi; M Sasaki; T Natori; M Yamaguchi Oura; K Ogasawara; M Kobayashi; Y Sato; Y Ogasawara; J Hitomi; Y Terayama Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S Narumi; M Sasaki; H Ohba; K Ogasawara; M Kobayashi; J Hitomi; K Mori; K Ohura; M Yamaguchi; K Kudo; Y Terayama Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S Narumi; M Sasaki; H Ohba; K Ogasawara; M Kobayashi; T Natori; J Hitomi; H Itagaki; T Takahashi; Y Terayama Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 3.825