Prevalence and Characteristics of Carotid Artery High‐Risk Atherosclerotic Plaques in Chinese Patients With Cerebrovascular Symptoms: A Chinese Atherosclerosis Risk Evaluation II Study

Background Carotid atherosclerotic plaque rupture is an important source of ischemic stroke. However, the prevalence of high‐risk plaque (HRP) defined as plaques with luminal surface disruption, a lipid‐rich necrotic core occupying >40% of the wall, or intraplaque hemorrhage in Chinese population...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the American Heart Association 2017-08, Vol.6 (8), p.n/a
Hauptverfasser: Zhao, Xihai, Hippe, Daniel S., Li, Rui, Canton, Gador M., Sui, Binbin, Song, Yan, Li, Feiyu, Xue, Yunjing, Sun, Jie, Yamada, Kiyofumi, Hatsukami, Thomas S., Xu, Dongxiang, Wang, Maoxue, Yuan, Chun
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Carotid atherosclerotic plaque rupture is an important source of ischemic stroke. However, the prevalence of high‐risk plaque (HRP) defined as plaques with luminal surface disruption, a lipid‐rich necrotic core occupying >40% of the wall, or intraplaque hemorrhage in Chinese population remains unclear. This study uses carotid magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) to investigate HRP prevalence in carotid arteries of Chinese patients with cerebrovascular symptoms. Methods and Results Patients with cerebral ischemic symptoms in the anterior circulation within 2 weeks and carotid plaque determined by ultrasound were recruited and underwent CMRI. The HRP features were identified and compared between symptomatic and asymptomatic arteries. Receiver‐operating‐characteristic analysis was used to calculate area‐under‐the‐curve (AUC) of stenosis and maximum wall thickness for discriminating presence of HRP. In 1047 recruited subjects, HRP detected by CMRI was nearly 1.5 times more prevalent than severe stenosis (≥50%) in this cohort (28% versus 19%, P
ISSN:2047-9980
2047-9980
DOI:10.1161/JAHA.117.005831