BACKGROUND: Our aim was to compare common carotid mean wall thickness (MWT) measurements by 3.0-T MRI with B-mode ultrasound common carotid intima-media thickness (CCIMT) measurements, a validated surrogate marker for cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: B-mode ultrasound and 3.0-T MRI scans of the left and right common carotid arteries were repeated 3 times in 15 healthy younger volunteers (age, 26+/-2.6 years), 15 healthy older volunteers (age, 57+/-3.2 years), and 15 subjects with cardiovascular disease and carotid atherosclerosis (age, 63+/-9.8 years). MWT was 0.711 (SD, 0.229) mm and mean CCIMT was 0.800 (SD, 0.206) mm. MWT and CCIMT were highly correlated (r=0.89, P<0.001). The intraclass correlation coefficients for interscan and interobserver and intraobserver agreements of MRI MWT measurements were larger than 0.95 with small confidence intervals, indicating excellent reproducibility. Power calculations indicate that 89 subjects are required to detect a 4% difference in MRI MWT compared with 469 subjects to detect similar differences with ultrasound IMT in follow-up studies. CONCLUSIONS: The study data for carotid MRI and ultrasound IMT showed strong agreement, indicating that both modalities measure the thickness of the intima and media. The advantage of MRI over ultrasound is that the measurement variability is smaller, enabling smaller sample sizes and potentially shorter study duration in cardiovascular prevention trials.
BACKGROUND: Our aim was to compare common carotid mean wall thickness (MWT) measurements by 3.0-T MRI with B-mode ultrasound common carotid intima-media thickness (CCIMT) measurements, a validated surrogate marker for cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: B-mode ultrasound and 3.0-T MRI scans of the left and right common carotid arteries were repeated 3 times in 15 healthy younger volunteers (age, 26+/-2.6 years), 15 healthy older volunteers (age, 57+/-3.2 years), and 15 subjects with cardiovascular disease and carotid atherosclerosis (age, 63+/-9.8 years). MWT was 0.711 (SD, 0.229) mm and mean CCIMT was 0.800 (SD, 0.206) mm. MWT and CCIMT were highly correlated (r=0.89, P<0.001). The intraclass correlation coefficients for interscan and interobserver and intraobserver agreements of MRI MWT measurements were larger than 0.95 with small confidence intervals, indicating excellent reproducibility. Power calculations indicate that 89 subjects are required to detect a 4% difference in MRI MWT compared with 469 subjects to detect similar differences with ultrasound IMT in follow-up studies. CONCLUSIONS: The study data for carotid MRI and ultrasound IMT showed strong agreement, indicating that both modalities measure the thickness of the intima and media. The advantage of MRI over ultrasound is that the measurement variability is smaller, enabling smaller sample sizes and potentially shorter study duration in cardiovascular prevention trials.
Authors: Ruud S Kootte; Loek P Smits; Fleur M van der Valk; Jean-Louis Dasseux; Constance H Keyserling; Ronald Barbaras; John F Paolini; Raul D Santos; Theo H van Dijk; Geesje M Dallinga-van Thie; Aart J Nederveen; Willem J M Mulder; G Kees Hovingh; John J P Kastelein; Albert K Groen; Erik S Stroes Journal: J Lipid Res Date: 2015-01-05 Impact factor: 5.922
Authors: Julian C van Capelleveen; Andrea E Bochem; M Mahdi Motazacker; G Kees Hovingh; John J P Kastelein Journal: Curr Atheroscler Rep Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 5.113
Authors: Fleur M van der Valk; Siroon Bekkering; Jeffrey Kroon; Calvin Yeang; Jan Van den Bossche; Jaap D van Buul; Amir Ravandi; Aart J Nederveen; Hein J Verberne; Corey Scipione; Max Nieuwdorp; Leo A B Joosten; Mihai G Netea; Marlys L Koschinsky; Joseph L Witztum; Sotirios Tsimikas; Niels P Riksen; Erik S G Stroes Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Anna E H Zavodni; Bruce A Wasserman; Robyn L McClelland; Antoinette S Gomes; Aaron R Folsom; Joseph F Polak; João A C Lima; David A Bluemke Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Janina C V Schwarz; Raphaël Duivenvoorden; Aart J Nederveen; Erik S G Stroes; Ed VanBavel Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Christopher T Sibley; Tyra Estwick; Anna Zavodni; Chiung-Yu Huang; Alan C Kwan; Benjamin P Soule; Debra A Long Priel; Alan T Remaley; Amanda K Rudman Spergel; Evrim B Turkbey; Douglas B Kuhns; Steven M Holland; Harry L Malech; Kol A Zarember; David A Bluemke; John I Gallin Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-09-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Diederik F van Wijk; Aart C Strang; Raphael Duivenvoorden; Dirk-Jan F Enklaar; Rob J van der Geest; John J P Kastelein; Eric de Groot; Erik S G Stroes; Aart J Nederveen Journal: MAGMA Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Christopher T Sibley; Andrea L Vavere; Ilan Gottlieb; Christopher Cox; Matthew Matheson; Amy Spooner; Gustavo Godoy; Veronica Fernandes; Bruce A Wasserman; David A Bluemke; Joao A C Lima Journal: Heart Date: 2013-07-19 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Tobias Saam; Jose G Raya; Clemens C Cyran; Katja Bochmann; Georgios Meimarakis; Olaf Dietrich; Dirk A Clevert; Ute Frey; Chun Yuan; Thomas S Hatsukami; Abe Werf; Maximilian F Reiser; Konstantin Nikolaou Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2009-10-27 Impact factor: 5.364