| Literature DB >> 18549502 |
Hunter R Underhill1, Chun Yuan, James G Terry, Haiying Chen, Mark A Espeland, Thomas S Hatsukami, Tobias Saam, Baocheng Chu, Wei Yu, Minako Oikawa, Norihide Takaya, Vasily L Yarnykh, Robert Kraft, J Jeffrey Carr, Joseph Maldjian, Rong Tang, John R Crouse.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine differences with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in the morphology and composition of the carotid arteries between individuals with angiographically-defined obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD, > or = 50% stenosis, cases) and those with angiographically normal coronaries (no lumen irregularities, controls). METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18549502 PMCID: PMC2440371 DOI: 10.1186/1532-429X-10-31
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Figure 1Illustration of the observed geometric differences between CAD cases and controls in the distal bulb and ICA. Dimensions of each shape were constructed in Matlab (The Mathworks, Natick, MA) to provide wall areas of identical size between shapes. Notice the increase in wall thickness in CAD cases associated with the smaller vessel size.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of the coverage for each segment of the carotid artery. Each axial section had a 2 mm slice thickness with no inter-slice gap. Corresponding T1W images of a right carotid artery from each location are provided. CCA = common carotid artery; ECA = external carotid artery; ICA = internal carotid artery; JV = jugular vein; * = lumen of the specified segment.
Patient demographic information in mean ± SE or %.
| 60.5 ± 1.4 | 60.8 ± 1.1 | 59.8 ± 1.1 | 57.8 ± 1.3 | |
| 162.9 ± 1.0 | 160.2 ± 0.8 | 174.8 ± 0.9 | 174.3 ± 0.9 | |
| 75.8 ± 2.4 | 77.0 ± 2.3 | 89.4 ± 2.3 | 95.8 ± 2.4 | |
| 85.4 | 85.4 | 81.6 | 91.3 | |
| 14.6 | 8.3 | 16.3 | 8.7 | |
| 0 | 6.3 | 2.0 | 0 | |
| 20.8 | 8.3 | 28.6 | 10.9 | |
| 54.2 | 35.4 | 62.5 | 54.3 | |
| 72.9 | 56.3 | 77.6 | 52.2 | |
| 77.1 | 25.0 | 85.7 | 19.6 | |
Comparison of arterial morphology fitted mean (SE) values after controlling for intra-subject correlations and gender for the whole sample population.
| 24.1 ± 0.6 | 24.0 ± 0.6 | 0.9 | |
| 35.8 ± 0.6 | 35.0 ± 0.6 | 0.4 | |
| 37.6 ± 1.3 | 41.0 ± 1.3 | 0.06 | |
| 64.6 ± 1.7 | 67.3 ± 1.7 | 0.3 | |
| 27.0 ± 0.6 | 26.4 ± 0.6 | 0.4 | |
| 33.0 ± 1.2 | 33.4 ± 1.2 | 0.8 | |
| 55.9 ± 1.6 | 55.5 ± 1.6 | 0.9 | |
| 22.9 ± 0.6 | 22.1 ± 0.6 | 0.3 | |
| 0.98 ± 0.02 | 0.95 ± 0.02 | 0.12 | |
| 0.413 ± 0.005 | 0.404 ± 0.005 | 0.2 |
ICA = internal carotid artery; LA = lumen area; TVA = total vessel area; WA = wall area; MWT = mean wall thickness; NWI = normalized wall index
Comparison of arterial morphology fitted mean (SE) values for each gender.
| 30.2 ± 1.9 | 32.3 ± 1.8 | 0.4 | ||||
| 52.4 ± 2.4 | 54.1 ± 2.3 | 0.6 | ||||
| 22.1 ± 0.9 | 21.8 ± 0.8 | 0.8 | 26.5 ± 0.9 | 26.4 ± 0.9 | 0.9 | |
| 1.01 ± 0.03 | 0.94 ± 0.03 | 0.12 | 1.07 ± 0.03 | 0.99 ± 0.03 | 0.07 | |
| 48.9 ± 3.2 | 49.2 ± 3.1 | 0.9 | ||||
| 80.5 ± 4.1 | 79.5 ± 4.0 | 0.9 | ||||
| 31.7 ± 1.3 | 30.2 ± 1.2 | 0.9 | 39.7 ± 1.2 | 40.0 ± 1.3 | 0.4 | |
| 1.11 ± 0.03 | 1.06 ± 0.03 | 0.2 | ||||
| 0.408 ± 0.009 | 0.391 ± 0.009 | 0.2 | ||||
| 33.7 ± 2.0 | 31.1 ± 1.9 | 0.3 | ||||
| 58.4 ± 2.7 | 53.8 ± 2.7 | 0.2 | ||||
| 24.7 ± 1.0 | 22.7 ± 1.0 | 0.13 | 29.5 ± 1.0 | 29.9 ± 1.0 | 0.7 | |
| 1.04 ± 0.03 | 0.99 ± 0.03 | 0.2 | 1.11 ± 0.03 | 1.06 ± 0.03 | 0.2 | |
| 0.426 ± 0.008 | 0.424 ± 0.008 | 0.8 | ||||
| 30.0 ± 1.2 | 28.8 ± 1.2 | 0.4 | 35.9 ± 1.3 | 38.5 ± 1.3 | 0.2 | |
| 51.9 ± 1.7 | 48.9 ± 1.7 | 0.2 | 60.3 ± 1.8 | 62.3 ± 1.9 | 0.4 | |
| 21.8 ± 0.7 | 20.2 ± 0.6 | 0.06 | 24.3 ± 0.7 | 23.8 ± 0.7 | 0.6 | |
| 0.97 ± 0.02 | 0.93 ± 0.02 | 0.09 | 1.00 ± 0.02 | 0.96 ± 0.02 | 0.15 | |
| 0.421 ± 0.006 | 0.419 ± 0.006 | 0.8 | ||||
ICA = internal carotid artery; LA = lumen area; TVA = total vessel area; WA = wall area; MWT = mean wall thickness; NWI = normalized wall index
Comparison of plaque component prevalence for the whole sample population.
| 16.8 | 9.6 | 0.20 | |
| 12.4 | 5.4 | 0.13 | |
| 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | |
| 3.1 | 0.0 | 0.2 |
ICA = internal carotid artery; LRNC = lipid-rich necrotic core
Comparison of plaque component prevalence for each gender.
| 21.3 | 8.3 | 0.09 | ||||
| 14.9 | 8.3 | 0.3 | 18.8 | 10.9 | 0.3 | |
| 12.5 | 14.6 | 0.8 | ||||
| 10.4 | 2.1 | 0.2 | 8.2 | 0.0 | 0.11 | |
| 8.3 | 2.1 | 0.4 | 16.3 | 8.9 | 0.4 | |
| 2.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | |
| 2.1 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 0.5 | |
ICA = internal carotid artery; LRNC = lipid-rich necrotic core
Figure 3Comparison of multi-contrast MR images of the carotid bulb and ICA from a CAD case and control. The upper panel of images is from a 56 year old white male with obstructive CAD and the lower panel is from a 52 year old white male control. All images were acquired with the same imaging matrix and have been magnified identically. In the CAD case, notice the smaller total vessel area and lumen area and increased wall thickness. Also present in the distal bulb of the CAD case is a low T2W signal consistent with lipid-rich necrotic core (arrowheads). In the ICA, calcification (hypo-intensity on all image weightings, arrows) is present in the CAD case. The control has a normal appearing artery without any imaging evidence of a thickened wall or the presence of plaque components. The asterisk in the T2W sequence indicates the lumen of either the carotid bulb or ICA.