BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Men have a greater prevalence of high-risk carotid plaque features associated with stroke compared with women who have ≥50% stenosis, but little is known about these features in less significantly stenotic carotid arteries. This study aims to evaluate sex differences in complicated carotid plaque features in asymptomatic patients with <50% stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-six patients (50 men, 46 women) with <50% carotid stenosis on MRA who had been referred for analysis of contralateral >50% carotid stenosis were included. The associations between sex and plaque features as identified by 3T MR carotid plaque imaging were examined by using logistic and linear regression models controlling for demographic characteristics, MRA stenosis, and the presence of contralateral plaque features. RESULTS: The presence of a thin/ruptured fibrous cap (16% versus 2%, adjusted odds ratio = 8.57, P = .047), IPH (24% versus 6%, adjusted odds ratio = 4.53, P = .027), and American Heart Association type VI plaque (26% versus 6%, adjusted odds ratio = 5.04, P = .017) was significantly higher in men than in women. These associations remained significant following adjustment for contralateral plaque features. Men demonstrated a larger percentage volume of LR/NC (median, 1.66% versus -0.21%; P < .01). Calcification was not significantly associated with sex. CONCLUSIONS: There is a sex difference of higher risk carotid plaque features during the early stage of disease seen in patients recruited for MR imaging evaluation of contralateral moderate-to-severe stenosis. Given the potential of using LR/NC without or with IPH to monitor therapy, these results indicate the possible importance of sex-based management in patients with asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis across all stages of carotid stenosis.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Men have a greater prevalence of high-risk carotid plaque features associated with stroke compared with women who have ≥50% stenosis, but little is known about these features in less significantly stenotic carotid arteries. This study aims to evaluate sex differences in complicated carotid plaque features in asymptomatic patients with <50% stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-six patients (50 men, 46 women) with <50% carotid stenosis on MRA who had been referred for analysis of contralateral >50% carotid stenosis were included. The associations between sex and plaque features as identified by 3T MR carotid plaque imaging were examined by using logistic and linear regression models controlling for demographic characteristics, MRA stenosis, and the presence of contralateral plaque features. RESULTS: The presence of a thin/ruptured fibrous cap (16% versus 2%, adjusted odds ratio = 8.57, P = .047), IPH (24% versus 6%, adjusted odds ratio = 4.53, P = .027), and American Heart Association type VI plaque (26% versus 6%, adjusted odds ratio = 5.04, P = .017) was significantly higher in men than in women. These associations remained significant following adjustment for contralateral plaque features. Men demonstrated a larger percentage volume of LR/NC (median, 1.66% versus -0.21%; P < .01). Calcification was not significantly associated with sex. CONCLUSIONS: There is a sex difference of higher risk carotid plaque features during the early stage of disease seen in patients recruited for MR imaging evaluation of contralateral moderate-to-severe stenosis. Given the potential of using LR/NC without or with IPH to monitor therapy, these results indicate the possible importance of sex-based management in patients with asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis across all stages of carotid stenosis.
Authors: Donald Lloyd-Jones; Robert J Adams; Todd M Brown; Mercedes Carnethon; Shifan Dai; Giovanni De Simone; T Bruce Ferguson; Earl Ford; Karen Furie; Cathleen Gillespie; Alan Go; Kurt Greenlund; Nancy Haase; Susan Hailpern; P Michael Ho; Virginia Howard; Brett Kissela; Steven Kittner; Daniel Lackland; Lynda Lisabeth; Ariane Marelli; Mary M McDermott; James Meigs; Dariush Mozaffarian; Michael Mussolino; Graham Nichol; Véronique L Roger; Wayne Rosamond; Ralph Sacco; Paul Sorlie; Randall Stafford; Thomas Thom; Sylvia Wasserthiel-Smoller; Nathan D Wong; Judith Wylie-Rosett Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Luigi Giusto Spagnoli; Alessandro Mauriello; Giuseppe Sangiorgi; Stefano Fratoni; Elena Bonanno; Robert S Schwartz; David G Piepgras; Raimondo Pistolese; Arnaldo Ippoliti; David R Holmes Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-10-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Norihide Takaya; Chun Yuan; Baocheng Chu; Tobias Saam; Nayak L Polissar; Gail P Jarvik; Carol Isaac; Judith McDonough; Cynthia Natiello; Randy Small; Marina S Ferguson; Thomas S Hatsukami Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-05-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Navneet Singh; Alan R Moody; David J Gladstone; General Leung; Radhakrishnan Ravikumar; James Zhan; Robert Maggisano Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Eli Lechtman; Indranil Balki; Kiersten Thomas; Kevin Chen; Alan R Moody; Pascal N Tyrrell Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Sofie Schmid; Pavlos Tsantilas; Christoph Knappich; Michael Kallmayer; Thomas König; Thorben Breitkreuz; Alexander Zimmermann; Andreas Kuehnl; Hans-Henning Eckstein Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Katharine A Kott; Marie-Christine Morel-Kopp; Stephen T Vernon; Yuki Takagi; Belinda A Di Bartolo; Karlheinz Peter; Jean Y Yang; Stuart M Grieve; Christopher Ward; Gemma A Figtree Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 5.501