43
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research

Risk factors and utility of maximum carotid intima–media thickness as a surrogate marker for coronary artery stenosis

, , , , &
Pages 1407-1416 | Published online: 13 Aug 2018

Figures & data

Figure 1 Visual quantitative grading of coronary artery stenosis using coronary computed tomography angiography. The severity of coronary artery stenosis (arrows) was visually categorized as no stenosis, 1%–24% stenosis, 25%–49% stenosis, 50%–74% stenosis, and ≥75% stenosis. Patients with at least one coronary artery stenotic lesion ≥75% were considered to have significant coronary artery stenosis.

Figure 1 Visual quantitative grading of coronary artery stenosis using coronary computed tomography angiography. The severity of coronary artery stenosis (arrows) was visually categorized as no stenosis, 1%–24% stenosis, 25%–49% stenosis, 50%–74% stenosis, and ≥75% stenosis. Patients with at least one coronary artery stenotic lesion ≥75% were considered to have significant coronary artery stenosis.

Figure 2 Longitudinal B-mode ultrasound image of the common carotid artery.

Notes: IMT was measured as the distance between the lumen–intima (black arrow) and media–adventitia (gray arrow) (A). Maximum-IMT was measured as the thickest IMT value recorded in either the right or left side of the common carotid artery, carotid bulb, and internal carotid artery (double arrow) (B).
Abbreviation: IMT, intima–media thickness.
Figure 2 Longitudinal B-mode ultrasound image of the common carotid artery.

Figure 3 Flow diagram of the analyzed patients.

Abbreviation: IMT, intima–media thickness.
Figure 3 Flow diagram of the analyzed patients.

Table 1 Patients’ characteristics (n=601)

Table 2 Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses of the variables associated with the presence of coronary artery stenosis of ≥75% in all patients (n=167)

Figure 4 Associations between the degree of maximum-IMT and the prevalence of coronary artery stenosis (≥75%) as determined with coronary computed tomography angiography in each group categorized by the presence or absence of diabetes mellitus and renal impairment.

Notes: (A) The group of patients with diabetes mellitus (−)/renal impairment (−). (B) The group of patients with diabetes mellitus (+)/renal impairment (−). (C) The group of patients with diabetes mellitus (−)/renal impairment (+). (D) The group of patients with diabetes mellitus (+)/renal impairment (+).
Abbreviation: IMT, intima–media thickness.
Figure 4 Associations between the degree of maximum-IMT and the prevalence of coronary artery stenosis (≥75%) as determined with coronary computed tomography angiography in each group categorized by the presence or absence of diabetes mellitus and renal impairment.

Table 3 Degree of maximum-IMT

Table 4 Patients’ characteristics categorized by the presence or absence of diabetes mellitus and renal impairment

Figure 5 ROC analysis for predicting coronary artery stenosis of ≥75% for each group categorized by the presence or absence of diabetes mellitus and renal impairment.

Notes: (A) The group of patients with diabetes mellitus (−)/renal impairment (−). (B) The group of patients with diabetes mellitus (+)/renal impairment (−). (C) The group of patients with diabetes mellitus (−)/renal impairment (+). (D) The group of patients with diabetes mellitus (+)/renal impairment (+).
Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.
Figure 5 ROC analysis for predicting coronary artery stenosis of ≥75% for each group categorized by the presence or absence of diabetes mellitus and renal impairment.