Jarett D Berry1, Anurag Mehta2, Kai Lin3, Colby R Ayers4, Timothy Carroll5, Ambarish Pandey1, Daniel B Garside6, Martha L Daviglus6, Chun Yuan7, Donald M Lloyd-Jones8. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine (J.D.B., A.P.), UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory Clinical Cardiovascular Research Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA (A.M.). 3. Department of Radiology (K.L.), Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 4. Department of Clinical Sciences (C.R.A.), UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, IL (T.C.). 6. Institute for Minority Health Research, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago (D.B.G., M.L.D.). 7. Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle (C.Y.). 8. Department of Preventive Medicine (D.M.L.-J.), Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Absence of cardiovascular risk factors (RF) in young adulthood is associated with a lower risk for cardiovascular disease. However, it is unclear if low RF burden in young adulthood decreases the quantitative burden and qualitative features of atherosclerosis. METHODS: Multi-contrast carotid magnetic resonance imaging was performed on 440 Chicago Healthy Aging Study participants in 2009 to 2011, whose RF (total cholesterol, blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, and smoking) were measured in 1967 to 1973. Participants were divided into 4 groups: low-risk (with total cholesterol <200 mg/dL and no treatment, blood pressure <120/80 mm Hg and no treatment, no smoking, and no diabetes mellitus), 0 high RF but some RF unfavorable (≥1 RF above low-risk threshold but below high-risk threshold), 1 high RF (total cholesterol ≥240 mg/dL or treated, blood pressure ≥140/90 or treated, diabetes mellitus, or smoking), and 2 or more high RF. Association of baseline RF status with carotid atherosclerosis (overall mean carotid wall thickness and lipid-rich necrotic core) at follow-up was assessed. RESULTS: Among 424 participants with evaluable carotid magnetic resonance images, the mean age was 32 years at baseline and 73 years at follow-up; 67% were male, 86% white, and 36% were low-risk at baseline. Two or more high RF status was associated with higher carotid wall thickness (0.99±0.11 mm) and lipid-rich necrotic core prevalence (30%), as compared with low-risk group (0.94±0.09 mm and 17%, respectively). Each increment in baseline RF status was associated with higher carotid wall thickness (β-coefficient, 0.015; 95% CI, 0.004-0.026) and with higher lipid-rich necrotic core prevalence at older age (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.00-1.58) in models adjusted for baseline RF and demographics. CONCLUSIONS: RF status in young adulthood is associated with the burden and quality of carotid atherosclerosis in older age suggesting that the decades-long protective effect of low-risk status might be mediated through a lower burden of quantitative and qualitative features of atherosclerotic plaque.
BACKGROUND: Absence of cardiovascular risk factors (RF) in young adulthood is associated with a lower risk for cardiovascular disease. However, it is unclear if low RF burden in young adulthood decreases the quantitative burden and qualitative features of atherosclerosis. METHODS: Multi-contrast carotid magnetic resonance imaging was performed on 440 Chicago Healthy Aging Study participants in 2009 to 2011, whose RF (total cholesterol, blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, and smoking) were measured in 1967 to 1973. Participants were divided into 4 groups: low-risk (with total cholesterol <200 mg/dL and no treatment, blood pressure <120/80 mm Hg and no treatment, no smoking, and no diabetes mellitus), 0 high RF but some RF unfavorable (≥1 RF above low-risk threshold but below high-risk threshold), 1 high RF (total cholesterol ≥240 mg/dL or treated, blood pressure ≥140/90 or treated, diabetes mellitus, or smoking), and 2 or more high RF. Association of baseline RF status with carotid atherosclerosis (overall mean carotid wall thickness and lipid-rich necrotic core) at follow-up was assessed. RESULTS: Among 424 participants with evaluable carotid magnetic resonance images, the mean age was 32 years at baseline and 73 years at follow-up; 67% were male, 86% white, and 36% were low-risk at baseline. Two or more high RF status was associated with higher carotid wall thickness (0.99±0.11 mm) and lipid-rich necrotic core prevalence (30%), as compared with low-risk group (0.94±0.09 mm and 17%, respectively). Each increment in baseline RF status was associated with higher carotid wall thickness (β-coefficient, 0.015; 95% CI, 0.004-0.026) and with higher lipid-rich necrotic core prevalence at older age (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.00-1.58) in models adjusted for baseline RF and demographics. CONCLUSIONS: RF status in young adulthood is associated with the burden and quality of carotid atherosclerosis in older age suggesting that the decades-long protective effect of low-risk status might be mediated through a lower burden of quantitative and qualitative features of atherosclerotic plaque.
Authors: J Stamler; R Stamler; J D Neaton; D Wentworth; M L Daviglus; D Garside; A R Dyer; K Liu; P Greenland Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-12-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jarett D Berry; Alan Dyer; Xuan Cai; Daniel B Garside; Hongyan Ning; Avis Thomas; Philip Greenland; Linda Van Horn; Russell P Tracy; Donald M Lloyd-Jones Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Martin Wolkewitz; Arthur Allignol; Stephan Harbarth; Giulia de Angelis; Martin Schumacher; Jan Beyersmann Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Yuling Hong; Darwin Labarthe; Dariush Mozaffarian; Lawrence J Appel; Linda Van Horn; Kurt Greenlund; Stephen Daniels; Graham Nichol; Gordon F Tomaselli; Donna K Arnett; Gregg C Fonarow; P Michael Ho; Michael S Lauer; Frederick A Masoudi; Rose Marie Robertson; Véronique Roger; Lee H Schwamm; Paul Sorlie; Clyde W Yancy; Wayne D Rosamond Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-01-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Anna E H Zavodni; Bruce A Wasserman; Robyn L McClelland; Antoinette S Gomes; Aaron R Folsom; Joseph F Polak; João A C Lima; David A Bluemke Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Quirijn J A van den Bouwhuijsen; Meike W Vernooij; Albert Hofman; Gabriel P Krestin; Aad van der Lugt; Jacqueline C M Witteman Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-08-06 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Amber Pirzada; Kathryn Reid; Daniel Kim; Daniel B Garside; Brandon Lu; Thanh-Huyen T Vu; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Phyllis Zee; Kiang Liu; Jeremiah Stamler; Martha L Daviglus Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-05-12 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Hunter R Underhill; Thomas S Hatsukami; Zahi A Fayad; Valentin Fuster; Chun Yuan Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Suvasini Lakshmanan; April Kinninger; Ilana Golub; Suraj Dahal; Divya Birudaraju; Khadije Ahmad; Ahmad K Ghanem; Vahid Rezvanizadeh; Sion K Roy; Matthew J Budoff Journal: Am J Prev Cardiol Date: 2020-10-21