PURPOSE: To determine the extent of thickening of the carotid arterial walls that may be accommodated by outward remodeling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained at each participating site, and informed consent was obtained from each participant. All study sites conducted this study in compliance with HIPAA requirements. A total of 2066 participants (age range, 60-85 years) from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study were enrolled in the ARIC Carotid MRI Study. Maximum wall thickness and luminal area were measured with gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in both common carotid arteries (CCAs) and in one internal carotid artery (ICA) 2 mm above the flow divider. Complete data were available for 1064 ICAs and 3348 CCAs. The association of maximum wall thickness with lumen area was evaluated with linear regression, and adjustments were made for participant age, sex, race, height, and height squared. RESULTS: In the ICA, lumen area was relatively constant across patients with a wall thickness of 1.38 mm or less. In patients with a wall thickness of more than 1.38 mm, however, lumen area decreased linearly as wall thickness increased. Wall area represented a median of 61.9% of the area circumscribed by the vessel at a maximum wall thickness of 1.50 mm +/- 0.05 (standard deviation) and 75.4% at a maximum wall thickness of 4.0 mm +/- 0.10. In the CCA, lumen area was preserved across wall thicknesses less than 2.06 mm, representing 99% of vessels. CONCLUSION: Atherosclerotic thickening in the ICA appears to be accommodated for vessels with a maximum wall thickness of less than 1.5 mm. Beyond this threshold, greater thickness is associated with a smaller lumen. The CCA appears to accommodate a wall thickness of less than 2.0 mm. These estimates indicate that the carotid arteries are able to compensate for a greater degree of thickening than are the coronary arteries. (c) RSNA, 2010.
PURPOSE: To determine the extent of thickening of the carotid arterial walls that may be accommodated by outward remodeling. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained at each participating site, and informed consent was obtained from each participant. All study sites conducted this study in compliance with HIPAA requirements. A total of 2066 participants (age range, 60-85 years) from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study were enrolled in the ARIC Carotid MRI Study. Maximum wall thickness and luminal area were measured with gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in both common carotid arteries (CCAs) and in one internal carotid artery (ICA) 2 mm above the flow divider. Complete data were available for 1064 ICAs and 3348 CCAs. The association of maximum wall thickness with lumen area was evaluated with linear regression, and adjustments were made for participant age, sex, race, height, and height squared. RESULTS: In the ICA, lumen area was relatively constant across patients with a wall thickness of 1.38 mm or less. In patients with a wall thickness of more than 1.38 mm, however, lumen area decreased linearly as wall thickness increased. Wall area represented a median of 61.9% of the area circumscribed by the vessel at a maximum wall thickness of 1.50 mm +/- 0.05 (standard deviation) and 75.4% at a maximum wall thickness of 4.0 mm +/- 0.10. In the CCA, lumen area was preserved across wall thicknesses less than 2.06 mm, representing 99% of vessels. CONCLUSION:Atherosclerotic thickening in the ICA appears to be accommodated for vessels with a maximum wall thickness of less than 1.5 mm. Beyond this threshold, greater thickness is associated with a smaller lumen. The CCA appears to accommodate a wall thickness of less than 2.0 mm. These estimates indicate that the carotid arteries are able to compensate for a greater degree of thickening than are the coronary arteries. (c) RSNA, 2010.
Authors: Bruce A Wasserman; William I Smith; Hugh H Trout; Richard O Cannon; Robert S Balaban; Andrew E Arai Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sarah E Vermeer; Tom Den Heijer; Peter J Koudstaal; Matthijs Oudkerk; Albert Hofman; Monique M B Breteler Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Bruce A Wasserman; A Richey Sharrett; Shenghan Lai; Antoinette S Gomes; Mary Cushman; Aaron R Folsom; Diane E Bild; Richard A Kronmal; Shantanu Sinha; David A Bluemke Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-01-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Marc M H Hermans; Ronald M A Henry; Jaqueline M Dekker; Giel Nijpels; Rob J Heine; Coen D A Stehouwer Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Kai Lin; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Ying Liu; Xiaoming Bi; Debiao Li; James C Carr Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Jennifer L Dearborn; Ye Qiao; Eliseo Guallar; Lyn M Steffen; Rebecca F Gottesman; Yiyi Zhang; Bruce A Wasserman Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2016-05-14 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: H Baradaran; P Patel; G Gialdini; A Giambrone; M P Lerario; B B Navi; J K Min; C Iadecola; H Kamel; A Gupta Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ye Qiao; Zeeshan Anwar; Jarunee Intrapiromkul; Li Liu; Steven R Zeiler; Richard Leigh; Yiyi Zhang; Eliseo Guallar; Bruce A Wasserman Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Diego Gallo; Payam B Bijari; Umberto Morbiducci; Ye Qiao; Yuanyuan Joyce Xie; Maryam Etesami; Damiaan Habets; Edward G Lakatta; Bruce A Wasserman; David A Steinman Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 4.118
Authors: Jennifer L Dearborn; Yiyi Zhang; Ye Qiao; Muhammad Fareed K Suri; Li Liu; Rebecca F Gottesman; Andreea M Rawlings; Thomas H Mosley; Alvaro Alonso; David S Knopman; Eliseo Guallar; Bruce A Wasserman Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 9.910