BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Different lesion locations in the atherosclerotic carotid bulb stenosis have not been clearly defined. We sought to evaluate 2 locations of carotid bulb stenosis in high-risk patients and to determine the relationship of each location to atherosclerotic risk factors and clinical features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Atherosclerotic carotid plaques of apical versus body lesions, defined according to the area and extent of plaque involvement, were retrospectively analyzed in 200 consecutive high-risk patients who underwent carotid stent placement because of > or =50% symptomatic stenosis. We evaluated interobserver concordance and assessed each type of lesion relative to 13 atherosclerotic risk factors, mode of symptom presentation, infarct pattern, procedure-related factors, and clinical outcomes, by univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Interobserver concordance showed good agreement for differentiating apical and body lesions (kappa = 0.745). Univariate analysis revealed that apical lesions (n = 108, 54%) were associated with pseudo-occlusion (P = .027), older age (P = .073), and alcohol intake (P = .080), whereas body lesions (n = 92, 46%) were associated with hyperlipidemia (P = .001), a wedge-shaped cortical infarct pattern (P = .057), and hyperperfusion syndrome (P = .083). Multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted by age revealed that hyperlipidemia (P = .002; OR, 3.462; 95% CI, 1.595-7.515) and hyperperfusion (P = .026; OR, 6.727; 95% CI, 1.261-35.894) were independent predictors of body-type lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Atherosclerotic carotid bulb stenosis was found to have 2 distinct locations, body and apical. Hyperlipidemia and cortical wedge-shaped infarcts were more frequently associated with body than with apical stenosis at the time of presentation.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Different lesion locations in the atherosclerotic carotid bulb stenosis have not been clearly defined. We sought to evaluate 2 locations of carotid bulb stenosis in high-risk patients and to determine the relationship of each location to atherosclerotic risk factors and clinical features. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Atherosclerotic carotid plaques of apical versus body lesions, defined according to the area and extent of plaque involvement, were retrospectively analyzed in 200 consecutive high-risk patients who underwent carotid stent placement because of > or =50% symptomatic stenosis. We evaluated interobserver concordance and assessed each type of lesion relative to 13 atherosclerotic risk factors, mode of symptom presentation, infarct pattern, procedure-related factors, and clinical outcomes, by univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Interobserver concordance showed good agreement for differentiating apical and body lesions (kappa = 0.745). Univariate analysis revealed that apical lesions (n = 108, 54%) were associated with pseudo-occlusion (P = .027), older age (P = .073), and alcohol intake (P = .080), whereas body lesions (n = 92, 46%) were associated with hyperlipidemia (P = .001), a wedge-shaped cortical infarct pattern (P = .057), and hyperperfusion syndrome (P = .083). Multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted by age revealed that hyperlipidemia (P = .002; OR, 3.462; 95% CI, 1.595-7.515) and hyperperfusion (P = .026; OR, 6.727; 95% CI, 1.261-35.894) were independent predictors of body-type lesions. CONCLUSIONS:Atherosclerotic carotid bulb stenosis was found to have 2 distinct locations, body and apical. Hyperlipidemia and cortical wedge-shaped infarcts were more frequently associated with body than with apical stenosis at the time of presentation.
Authors: Frank Helderman; Dolf Segers; Rini de Crom; Berend P Hierck; Rob E Poelmann; Paul C Evans; Rob Krams Journal: Curr Opin Lipidol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.776
Authors: Dae Chul Suh; Soo-Hyun Lee; Kyung Rae Kim; Sung Tae Park; Soo Mee Lim; Sang Joon Kim; Choong Gon Choi; Ho Kyu Lee Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 3.825
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: B S Choi; J W Park; J E Shin; P-H Lü; J K Kim; S J Kim; D H Lee; J S Kim; H J Kim; D C Suh Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2010-10-25 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: M Kappelhof; H A Marquering; O A Berkhemer; J Borst; A van der Lugt; W H van Zwam; J A Vos; G Lycklama À Nijeholt; C B L M Majoie; B J Emmer Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-04-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: D C Suh; J L Kim; E H Kim; J K Kim; J-H Shin; D H Hyun; H Y Lee; D H Lee; J S Kim Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-01-19 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Dae Chul Suh; Young Bae Ko; Sung-Tae Park; Kyunghwan Yoon; Ok Kyun Lim; Jin Sun Oh; Yun Gyeong Jeong; Jong Sung Kim Journal: Neurointervention Date: 2011-02-28