Why the study?
Correct stratification of ischemic stroke risk enables proper treatment of carotid atherosclerotic disease, prompting differentiation of plaque types based on stenosis level and plaque morphology.
A substantial proportion of symptomatic ischemic stroke patients have high-risk carotid plaques despite non-significant luminal stenosis, suggesting current guidelines based solely on stenosis degree may misclassify stroke risk.
May flag misclassified high-risk plaques by stenosis criteria alone; leaves open whether HRP integration improves stroke risk prediction.
Correct stratification of ischemic stroke risk allows for the proper treatment of carotid atherosclerotic disease. We seek to differentiate plaque types based on stenosis level and plaque morphology. The Chinese Atherosclerosis Risk Evaluation (CARE-II) study is a cross-sectional, observational, multicenter study to assess carotid atherosclerotic plaques in symptomatic subjects using vessel wall magnetic resonance imaging. Plaque morphology and presence of plaque components were reviewed using multi-contrast magnetic resonance imaging. The carotid arteries were divided into four groups based on stenosis level and plaque components. Out of 1072 ischemic stroke subjects, 452 ipsilateral side carotid arteries were included. Significant stenosis (SS) (≥50% stenosis) with high-risk plaque (HRP) features was present in 37 arteries (8.2%), SS(+)/HRP(-) in 29 arteries (6.4%), SS(-)/HRP(+) in 57 arteries (12.6%), and SS(-)/HRP(-) in 329 arteries (72.8%). The prevalence of SS(-)/HRP(+) arteries in this cohort was substantial and had greater wall thickness than the SS(+)/HRP(-) group. These arteries may be misclassified for carotid revascularization by current guidelines based on the degree of luminal stenosis only. These findings have implications for further studies to assess stroke risk using vessel wall imaging.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Watase et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: