BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ulceration in carotid plaque is a risk indicator for ischemic stroke. Our aim was to compare plaque ulcer detection by standard TOF and CE-MRA techniques and to identify factors that influence its detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Carotid MR imaging scans were acquired on 2066 participants in the ARIC study. We studied the 600 thickest plaques. TOF-MRA, CE-MRA, and black-blood MR images were analyzed together to define ulcer presence (plaque surface niche ≥2 mm in depth). Sixty ulcerated arteries were detected. These arteries were randomly assigned, along with 40 nonulcerated plaques from the remaining 540, for evaluation of ulcer presence by 2 neuroradiologists. Associations between ulcer detection and ulcer characteristics, including orientation, location, and size, were determined and explored by CFD modeling. RESULTS: One CE-MRA and 3 TOF-MRAs were noninterpretable and excluded. Of 71 ulcers in 56 arteries, readers detected an average of 39 (55%) on both TOF-MRA and CE-MRA, 26.5 (37.5%) only on CE-MRA, and 1 (1.5%) only on TOF-MRA, missing 4.5 (6%) ulcers by both methods. Ulcer detection by TOF-MRA was associated with its orientation (distally pointing versus perpendicular: OR = 5.57 [95% CI, 1.08-28.65]; proximally pointing versus perpendicular: OR = 0.21 [95% CI, 0.14-0.29]); location relative to point of maximum stenosis (distal versus isolevel: OR = 5.17 [95% CI, 2.10-12.70]); and neck-to-depth ratio (OR = 1.96 [95% CI, 1.11-3.45]) after controlling for stenosis and ulcer volume. CONCLUSIONS: CE-MRA detects more ulcers than TOF-MRA in carotid plaques. Missed ulcers on TOF-MRA are influenced by ulcer orientation, location relative to point of maximum stenosis, and neck-to-depth ratio.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ulceration in carotid plaque is a risk indicator for ischemic stroke. Our aim was to compare plaque ulcer detection by standard TOF and CE-MRA techniques and to identify factors that influence its detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Carotid MR imaging scans were acquired on 2066 participants in the ARIC study. We studied the 600 thickest plaques. TOF-MRA, CE-MRA, and black-blood MR images were analyzed together to define ulcer presence (plaque surface niche ≥2 mm in depth). Sixty ulcerated arteries were detected. These arteries were randomly assigned, along with 40 nonulcerated plaques from the remaining 540, for evaluation of ulcer presence by 2 neuroradiologists. Associations between ulcer detection and ulcer characteristics, including orientation, location, and size, were determined and explored by CFD modeling. RESULTS: One CE-MRA and 3 TOF-MRAs were noninterpretable and excluded. Of 71 ulcers in 56 arteries, readers detected an average of 39 (55%) on both TOF-MRA and CE-MRA, 26.5 (37.5%) only on CE-MRA, and 1 (1.5%) only on TOF-MRA, missing 4.5 (6%) ulcers by both methods. Ulcer detection by TOF-MRA was associated with its orientation (distally pointing versus perpendicular: OR = 5.57 [95% CI, 1.08-28.65]; proximally pointing versus perpendicular: OR = 0.21 [95% CI, 0.14-0.29]); location relative to point of maximum stenosis (distal versus isolevel: OR = 5.17 [95% CI, 2.10-12.70]); and neck-to-depth ratio (OR = 1.96 [95% CI, 1.11-3.45]) after controlling for stenosis and ulcer volume. CONCLUSIONS: CE-MRA detects more ulcers than TOF-MRA in carotid plaques. Missed ulcers on TOF-MRA are influenced by ulcer orientation, location relative to point of maximum stenosis, and neck-to-depth ratio.
Authors: J Y Streifler; M Eliasziw; A J Fox; O R Benavente; V C Hachinski; G G Ferguson; H J Barnett Journal: Stroke Date: 1994-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: J F Polak; D H O'Leary; R A Kronmal; S K Wolfson; M G Bond; R P Tracy; J M Gardin; S J Kittner; T R Price; P J Savage Journal: Radiology Date: 1993-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Thomas T de Weert; Sander Cretier; Harald C Groen; Philip Homburg; Hamit Cakir; Jolanda J Wentzel; Diederik W J Dippel; Aad van der Lugt Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-03-05 Impact factor: 7.914
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: J M U-King-Im; R Trivedi; J Cross; N Higgins; M Graves; P Kirkpatrick; N Antoun; J H Gillard Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: John C Benson; Heidi Cheek; Marie C Aubry; Giuseppe Lanzino; John Huston Iii; Alejandro Rabinstein; Waleed Brinjikji Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Ulrike Cornelia Isabel Hoyer; Simon Lennartz; Nuran Abdullayev; Florian Fichter; Stephanie T Jünger; Lukas Goertz; Kai Roman Laukamp; Roman Johannes Gertz; Jan-Peter Grunz; Christopher Hohmann; David Maintz; Thorsten Persigehl; Christoph Kabbasch; Jan Borggrefe; Kilian Weiss; Lenhard Pennig Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2022-07
Authors: Malachi Sheahan; Xiaonan Ma; David Paik; Nancy A Obuchowski; Samantha St Pierre; William P Newman; Guenevere Rae; Eric S Perlman; Michael Rosol; James C Keith; Andrew J Buckler Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jianmin Yuan; Gregory Makris; Andrew Patterson; Ammara Usman; Tilak Das; Andrew Priest; Zhongzhao Teng; Sarah Hilborne; Dario Prudencio; Jonathan Gillard; Martin Graves Journal: MAGMA Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 2.310