This study provides the first age- and gender-specific normative data for carotid intima-media thickness in an asymptomatic Indian population, demonstrating correlations with traditional cardiovascular risk factors.
Establishes first Indian CIMT norms; leaves open prospective validation before clinical risk stratification.
BACKGROUND: There is presently no data to describe normal distribution of carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT), an established measure of subclinical atherosclerosis, in Indian subjects. METHODS: In this multi-centric study, 1229 subjects with age ≥30 years and no previous cardiovascular disease (CVD) underwent CVD risk factor assessment and CIMT measurement. Mean far wall common carotid artery IMT was measured on both sides and averaged. RESULTS: Mean age of the subjects was 48.0±12.0 years and 54.2% were men. CIMT measurement was feasible in 1157 subjects. Mean, median and 75th percentile values of CIMT for different age-groups were derived for men and women separately. There was a progressive increase in CIMT with increasing age (P<0.001) and men had higher CIMT values than women (0.608±0.12mm vs. 0.579±0.11mm, P<0.001). The CIMT values were also higher in diabetics (0.635±0.10mm) and hypertensives (0.624±0.10mm) as compared to non-diabetics (0.589±0.12mm, P<0.001) and non-hypertensives (0.592±0.12, P 0.02) respectively. Among continuous variables, age, systolic blood pressure and fasting blood glucose had strong to modest correlation with CIMT (Pearson's r 0.524, 0.282 and 0.192 respectively, all P values <0.001), whereas body mass index, diastolic blood pressure and serum triglycerides exhibited weak but still statistically significant relationship (Pearson's r 0.069, P 0.019; Pearson's r 0.065, P 0.026; and Pearson's r 0.094, P 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to provide age- and gender-specific distribution of CIMT in Indian subjects free from CVD. This information should help facilitate further research and clinical work involving CIMT in India.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kasliwal et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: