BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine associations between stenosis, measures of plaque burden, and compositional features of carotid atherosclerosis, including high-risk features of intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH) and surface disruption. METHODS: Institutional Review Board approval and informed consent for all participants were obtained before study initiation. Patients with either carotid stenosis >50% by duplex ultrasound or suspected coronary artery disease underwent multi-contrast carotid MRI at 3.0 T. For each artery, stenosis, percent wall volume (PWV=100%×wall volume/total vessel volume), and mean wall thickness (MWT) were measured. Presence or absence of a lipid-rich necrotic core, calcification, IPH, and surface disruption were recorded. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-one patients were included in the final analysis. The area under the curve (AUC) calculated from receiver-operating-characteristics analysis found the presence of IPH was similarly classified by stenosis (AUC=0.82), PWV (AUC=0.88), and MWT (AUC=0.88). Notably, IPH was present in the lowest category of each parameter. Prevalence of IPH in arteries with 0% stenosis was 4.4%. In arteries with PWV <40%, prevalence was 3.2%; in arteries with MWT <1.0 mm, prevalence was 2.3%. Strength of classification for surface disruption was similarly classified by stenosis (AUC=0.87), PWV (AUC=0.93), and MWT (AUC=0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Measures of plaque burden do not substantially improve disease assessment compared to stenosis. The finding of IPH in all categories of stenosis and plaque burden suggests that direct characterization of plaque composition and surface status is necessary to fully discriminate disease severity.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To determine associations between stenosis, measures of plaque burden, and compositional features of carotid atherosclerosis, including high-risk features of intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH) and surface disruption. METHODS: Institutional Review Board approval and informed consent for all participants were obtained before study initiation. Patients with either carotid stenosis >50% by duplex ultrasound or suspected coronary artery disease underwent multi-contrast carotid MRI at 3.0 T. For each artery, stenosis, percent wall volume (PWV=100%×wall volume/total vessel volume), and mean wall thickness (MWT) were measured. Presence or absence of a lipid-rich necrotic core, calcification, IPH, and surface disruption were recorded. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-one patients were included in the final analysis. The area under the curve (AUC) calculated from receiver-operating-characteristics analysis found the presence of IPH was similarly classified by stenosis (AUC=0.82), PWV (AUC=0.88), and MWT (AUC=0.88). Notably, IPH was present in the lowest category of each parameter. Prevalence of IPH in arteries with 0% stenosis was 4.4%. In arteries with PWV <40%, prevalence was 3.2%; in arteries with MWT <1.0 mm, prevalence was 2.3%. Strength of classification for surface disruption was similarly classified by stenosis (AUC=0.87), PWV (AUC=0.93), and MWT (AUC=0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Measures of plaque burden do not substantially improve disease assessment compared to stenosis. The finding of IPH in all categories of stenosis and plaque burden suggests that direct characterization of plaque composition and surface status is necessary to fully discriminate disease severity.
Authors: Tobias Saam; William S Kerwin; Baocheng Chu; Jianming Cai; Annette Kampschulte; Thomas S Hatsukami; Xue-Qiao Zhao; Nayak L Polissar; Blazej Neradilek; Vasily L Yarnykh; Kelly Flemming; John Huston; William Insull; Joel D Morrisett; Scott D Rand; Kevin J DeMarco; Chun Yuan Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2005 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Rikin A Trivedi; Chinthake Mallawarachi; Jean-Marie U-King-Im; Martin J Graves; Jo Horsley; Martin J Goddard; Andrew Brown; Liqun Wang; Peter J Kirkpatrick; John Brown; Jonathan H Gillard Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2006-04-20 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Tobias Saam; Thomas S Hatsukami; Vasily L Yarnykh; Cecil E Hayes; Hunter Underhill; Baocheng Chu; Norihide Takaya; Jianming Cai; William S Kerwin; Dongxiang Xu; Nayak L Polissar; B Neradilek; Wendy K Hamar; Jeffrey Maki; Dennis W Shaw; Robert J Buck; Brad Wyman; Chun Yuan Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: N Yamada; M Higashi; R Otsubo; T Sakuma; N Oyama; R Tanaka; K Iihara; H Naritomi; K Minematsu; H Naito Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: M Hollander; M L Bots; A Iglesias Del Sol; P J Koudstaal; J C M Witteman; D E Grobbee; A Hofman; M M B Breteler Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-06-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Tobias Saam; Hunter R Underhill; Baocheng Chu; Norihide Takaya; Jianming Cai; Nayak L Polissar; Chun Yuan; Thomas S Hatsukami Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-03-11 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: A A Appel; C-Y Chou; J C Larson; Z Zhong; F J Schoen; C M Johnston; E M Brey; M A Anastasio Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Navneet Singh; Alan R Moody; Geneviéve Rochon-Terry; Alexander Kiss; Anna Zavodni Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-04-28 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: R Zainon; J P Ronaldson; T Janmale; N J Scott; T M Buckenham; A P H Butler; P H Butler; R M Doesburg; S P Gieseg; J A Roake; N G Anderson Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Xianling Wang; Jie Sun; Xihai Zhao; Daniel S Hippe; Thomas S Hatsukami; Jin Liu; Rui Li; Gador Canton; Yan Song; Chun Yuan Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: M S McLaughlin; P J Hinckley; S M Treiman; S-E Kim; G J Stoddard; D L Parker; G S Treiman; J S McNally Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 3.825