4.6 Review

CIMT as a risk factor for stroke subtype: A systematic review

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eci.13348

Keywords

cerebrovascular disease; common carotid artery; intima-media thickness; intracerebral haemorrhage; ischaemic stroke; meta-analysis; stroke subtypes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction An increase in the common carotid artery intima-media thickness (CCA-IMT) is generally considered an early marker of atherosclerosis and is a well-established predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD). An association between changes in CCA-IMT and risk of stroke has been reported but has conflicting findings. Objective The present meta-analysis was aimed to clarify the association between CCA-IMT with the risk of stroke and its subtype by estimating pooled analysis of published literature. Methods Comprehensive search for all published articles was performed in electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Trip Databases, Worldwide Science, CINAHL and Google Scholar from 01 January 1950 to 30 April 2020. Results In our meta-analysis, a total of 19 studies, of which sixteen studies involving 3475 ischaemic stroke (IS) cases and 11 826 controls; six studies with 902 large vessel disease (LVD) and 548 small vessel disease (SVD) of IS subtypes; five studies with 228 intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) and 1032 IS cases, were included. Our findings suggest a strong association between increased CCA-IMT with risk of IS as compared to control subjects [SMD = 1.46, 95% CI = 0.90-2.02]. However, there is an increased risk of LVD as compared to the SVD subtype of IS [SMD = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.19-0.52] and more chance of occurrence of IS rather than ICH [SMD = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.28-1.41]. Conclusions Carotid intima thickness measurements are found to be associated with the risk of stroke along with its subtypes and may be used as a diagnostic marker for predicting the risk of stroke events.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available