4.5 Article

Calcified carotid atherosclerotic plaque is associated less with ischemic symptoms than is noncalcified plaque on MDCT

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
卷 184, 期 1, 页码 295-298

出版社

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.1.01840295

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL075792] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL075792-02, R01 HL075792] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. Risk assessment based on plaque vulnerability would be valuable in the management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis. The purpose of this study was to compare plaque morphology in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with significant extracranial carotid artery stenosis using MDCT angiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We identified 31 patients with greater than 60% carotid artery stenosis on MDCT angiography using the criteria of the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. We analyzed plaque density by blinded review in Hounsfield units in the atherosclerotic plaques of 15 symptomatic and 21 asymptomactic stenotic vessels for classification as soft, intermediate, or calcified. Data were analyzed using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS. Even with age, traditional cardiovascular risk factors, and treatment taken into we found that calcified plaques were 21 times less likely to be symptomatic than non-calcified calcified plaques (95% confidence interval for odds ratio, 0.003, 0.749: p = 0.030). No significant predictive value was found between soft (p = 0.23) or intermediate (p = 0.18) plaque morphology for the occurrence of symptoms. CONCLUSION. MDCT angiography may help risk-stratify patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Extracranial carotid artery calcified plaques causing stenosis are significantly less likely to be symptomatic and thus may be more stable than noncalcified plaques. This finding may have implications for the interpretation of calcification of atherosclerotic plaque in other vascular beds.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据