L B Eisenmenger1, B W Aldred1, S-E Kim1, G J Stoddard2, A de Havenon3, G S Treiman4, D L Parker1, J S McNally5. 1. From the Department of Radiology (L.B.E., B.W.A., S.-E.K., G.S.T., D.L.P., J.S.M.), Utah Center for Advanced Imaging Research. 2. Department of Orthopedics (G.J.S.), Design and Biostatistics Center. 3. Department of Neurology (A.d.H.). 4. From the Department of Radiology (L.B.E., B.W.A., S.-E.K., G.S.T., D.L.P., J.S.M.), Utah Center for Advanced Imaging Research Department of Surgery (G.S.T.), University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah Department of Surgery (G.S.T.), VA Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, Utah. 5. From the Department of Radiology (L.B.E., B.W.A., S.-E.K., G.S.T., D.L.P., J.S.M.), Utah Center for Advanced Imaging Research scott.mcnally@hsc.utah.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Carotid intraplaque hemorrhage is associated with stroke, plaque thickness, stenosis, ulceration, and adventitial inflammation. Conflicting data exist on whether calcification is a marker of plaque instability, and no data exist on adventitial calcification. Our goal was to determine whether adventitial calcification and soft plaque (a rim sign) help predict carotid intraplaque hemorrhage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 96 patients who underwent carotid MRA and CTA within 1 month, from 2009 to 2016. We excluded occlusions (n = 4) and near occlusions (n = 0), leaving 188 carotid arteries. Intraplaque hemorrhage was detected by using MPRAGE. Calcification, adventitial pattern, stenosis, maximum plaque thickness (total, soft, and hard), ulceration, and intraluminal thrombus on CTA were recorded. Atherosclerosis risk factors and medications were recorded. We used mixed-effects multivariable Poisson regression, accounting for 2 vessels per patient. For the final model, backward elimination was used with a threshold of P < .10. Receiver operating characteristic analysis determined intraplaque hemorrhage by using the area under the curve. RESULTS: Our final model included the rim sign (prevalence ratio = 11.9, P < .001) and maximum soft-plaque thickness (prevalence ratio = 1.2, P = .06). This model had excellent intraplaque hemorrhage prediction (area under the curve = 0.94), outperforming the rim sign, maximum soft-plaque thickness, NASCET stenosis, and ulceration (area under the curve = 0.88, 0.86, 0.77, and 0.63, respectively; P < .001). Addition of the rim sign performed better than each marker alone, including maximum soft-plaque thickness (area under the curve = 0.94 versus 0.86, P < .001), NASCET stenosis (area under the curve = 0.90 versus 0.77, P < .001), and ulceration (area under the curve = 0.90 versus 0.63, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The CTA rim sign of adventitial calcification with internal soft plaque is highly predictive of carotid intraplaque hemorrhage.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Carotid intraplaque hemorrhage is associated with stroke, plaque thickness, stenosis, ulceration, and adventitial inflammation. Conflicting data exist on whether calcification is a marker of plaque instability, and no data exist on adventitial calcification. Our goal was to determine whether adventitial calcification and soft plaque (a rim sign) help predict carotid intraplaque hemorrhage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 96 patients who underwent carotid MRA and CTA within 1 month, from 2009 to 2016. We excluded occlusions (n = 4) and near occlusions (n = 0), leaving 188 carotid arteries. Intraplaque hemorrhage was detected by using MPRAGE. Calcification, adventitial pattern, stenosis, maximum plaque thickness (total, soft, and hard), ulceration, and intraluminal thrombus on CTA were recorded. Atherosclerosis risk factors and medications were recorded. We used mixed-effects multivariable Poisson regression, accounting for 2 vessels per patient. For the final model, backward elimination was used with a threshold of P < .10. Receiver operating characteristic analysis determined intraplaque hemorrhage by using the area under the curve. RESULTS: Our final model included the rim sign (prevalence ratio = 11.9, P < .001) and maximum soft-plaque thickness (prevalence ratio = 1.2, P = .06). This model had excellent intraplaque hemorrhage prediction (area under the curve = 0.94), outperforming the rim sign, maximum soft-plaque thickness, NASCET stenosis, and ulceration (area under the curve = 0.88, 0.86, 0.77, and 0.63, respectively; P < .001). Addition of the rim sign performed better than each marker alone, including maximum soft-plaque thickness (area under the curve = 0.94 versus 0.86, P < .001), NASCET stenosis (area under the curve = 0.90 versus 0.77, P < .001), and ulceration (area under the curve = 0.90 versus 0.63, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The CTA rim sign of adventitial calcification with internal soft plaque is highly predictive of carotid intraplaque hemorrhage.
Authors: Jean Marie U-King-Im; Allan J Fox; Richard I Aviv; Peter Howard; Robert Yeung; Alan R Moody; Sean P Symons Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-06-24 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: M Trelles; K M Eberhardt; M Buchholz; A Schindler; A Bayer-Karpinska; M Dichgans; M F Reiser; K Nikolaou; T Saam Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J Scott McNally; Hyo-Chun Yoon; Seong-Eun Kim; Krishna K Narra; Michael S McLaughlin; Dennis L Parker; Gerald S Treiman Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 2.486
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: 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: A Gupta; E E Mtui; H Baradaran; G Salama; A Pandya; H Kamel; A Giambrone; P C Sanelli Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Wael E Shaalan; Hongwei Cheng; Bruce Gewertz; James F McKinsey; Lewis B Schwartz; Daniel Katz; Dindcai Cao; Tina Desai; Seymour Glagov; Hisham S Bassiouny Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: M Azuma; K Maekawa; A Yamashita; K Yokogami; M Enzaki; Z A Khant; H Takeshima; Y Asada; Y Wang; T Hirai Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-12-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Karolin Johanna Paprottka; Damiana Saam; Johannes Rübenthaler; Andreas Schindler; Nora Navina Sommer; Philipp Marius Paprottka; Dirk André Clevert; Maximilian Reiser; Tobias Saam; Andreas Helck Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: L Saba; H Chen; R Cau; G D Rubeis; G Zhu; F Pisu; B Jang; G Lanzino; J S Suri; Y Qi; M Wintermark Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J C Benson; V Nardi; A A Madhavan; M C Bois; L Saba; L Savastano; A Lerman; G Lanzino Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: John C Benson; Valentina Nardi; Melanie C Bois; Luca Saba; Waleed Brinjikji; Luis Savastano; Giuseppe Lanzino; Amir Lerman Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2021-08-16 Impact factor: 1.764
Authors: Hediyeh Baradaran; Sinead Culleton; Greg Stoddard; Matthew D Alexander; J Rafael Romero; J Rock Hadley; Seong-Eun Kim; Dennis L Parker; J Scott McNally Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2022-10-24 Impact factor: 2.995