Intima-media thickness at the near or far wall of the common carotid artery in cardiovascular risk assessment

Aims: Current guidelines recommend measuring carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) at the far wall of the common carotid artery (CCA). We aimed to precisely quantify associations of near vs. far wall CCA-IMT with the risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD, defined as coronary heart disease or stroke) and their added predictive values. Methods and results: We analysed individual records of 41 941 participants from 16 prospective studies in the Proof-ATHERO consortium {mean age 61 years [standard deviation (SD) = 11]; 53% female; 16% prior CVD}. Mean baseline values of near and far wall CCA-IMT were 0.83 (SD = 0.28) and 0.82 (SD = 0.27) mm, differed by a mean of 0.02 mm (95% limits of agreement: −0.40 to 0.43), and were moderately correlated [r = 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39–0.49). Over a median follow-up of 9.3 years, we recorded 10 423 CVD events. We pooled study-specific hazard ratios for CVD using random-effects meta-analysis. Near and far wall CCA-IMT values were approximately linearly associated with CVD risk. The respective hazard ratios per SD higher value were 1.18 (95% CI: 1.14–1.22; I² = 30.7%) and 1.20 (1.18–1.23; I² = 5.3%) when adjusted for age, sex, and prior CVD and 1.09 (1.07–1.12; I² = 8.4%) and 1.14 (1.12–1.16; I²=1.3%) upon multivariable adjustment (all P < 0.001). Assessing CCA-IMT at both walls provided a greater C-index improvement than assessing CCA-IMT at one wall only [+0.0046 vs. +0.0023 for near (P < 0.001), +0.0037 for far wall (P = 0.006)]. Conclusions: The associations of near and far wall CCA-IMT with incident CVD were positive, approximately linear, and similarly strong. Improvement in risk discrimination was highest when CCA-IMT was measured at both walls

Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Progression as Surrogate Marker for Cardiovascular Risk Meta-Analysis of 119 Clinical Trials Involving 100 667 Patients

Background: To quantify the association between effects of interventions on carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) progression and their effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Methods: We systematically collated data from randomized, controlled trials. cIMT was assessed as the mean value at the common-carotid-artery; if unavailable, the maximum value at the common-carotid-artery or other cIMT measures were used. The primary outcome was a combined CVD end point defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization procedures, or fatal CVD. We estimated intervention effects on cIMT progression and incident CVD for each trial, before relating the 2 using a Bayesian meta-regression approach. Results: We analyzed data of 119 randomized, controlled trials involving 100 667 patients (mean age 62 years, 42% female). Over an average follow-up of 3.7 years, 12 038 patients developed the combined CVD end point. Across all interventions, each 10 μm/y reduction of cIMT progression resulted in a relative risk for CVD of 0.91 (95% Credible Interval, 0.87–0.94), with an additional relative risk for CVD of 0.92 (0.87–0.97) being achieved independent of cIMT progression. Taken together, we estimated that interventions reducing cIMT progression by 10, 20, 30, or 40 μm/y would yield relative risks of 0.84 (0.75–0.93), 0.76 (0.67–0.85), 0.69 (0.59–0.79), or 0.63 (0.52–0.74), respectively. Results were similar when grouping trials by type of intervention, time of conduct, time to ultrasound follow-up, availability of individual-participant data, primary versus secondary prevention trials, type of cIMT measurement, and proportion of female patients. Conclusions: The extent of intervention effects on cIMT progression predicted the degree of CVD risk reduction. This provides a missing link supporting the usefulness of cIMT progression as a surrogate marker for CVD risk in clinical trials

Intima-media thickness at the near or far wall of the common carotid artery in cardiovascular risk assessment

Aims: Current guidelines recommend measuring carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) at the far wall of the common carotid artery (CCA). We aimed to precisely quantify associations of near vs. far wall CCA-IMT with the risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD, defined as coronary heart disease or stroke) and their added predictive values. Methods and results: We analysed individual records of 41 941 participants from 16 prospective studies in the Proof-ATHERO consortium {mean age 61 years [standard deviation (SD) = 11]; 53% female; 16% prior CVD}. Mean baseline values of near and far wall CCA-IMT were 0.83 (SD = 0.28) and 0.82 (SD = 0.27) mm, differed by a mean of 0.02 mm (95% limits of agreement: -0.40 to 0.43), and were moderately correlated [r = 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-0.49). Over a median follow-up of 9.3 years, we recorded 10 423 CVD events. We pooled study-specific hazard ratios for CVD using random-effects meta-analysis. Near and far wall CCA-IMT values were approximately linearly associated with CVD risk. The respective hazard ratios per SD higher value were 1.18 (95% CI: 1.14-1.22; I² = 30.7%) and 1.20 (1.18-1.23; I² = 5.3%) when adjusted for age, sex, and prior CVD and 1.09 (1.07-1.12; I² = 8.4%) and 1.14 (1.12-1.16; I²=1.3%) upon multivariable adjustment (all P < 0.001). Assessing CCA-IMT at both walls provided a greater C-index improvement than assessing CCA-IMT at one wall only [+0.0046 vs. +0.0023 for near (P < 0.001), +0.0037 for far wall (P = 0.006)]. Conclusions: The associations of near and far wall CCA-IMT with incident CVD were positive, approximately linear, and similarly strong. Improvement in risk discrimination was highest when CCA-IMT was measured at both walls

Intima-media thickness at the near or far wall of the common carotid artery in cardiovascular risk assessment

Aims: Current guidelines recommend measuring carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) at the far wall of the common carotid artery (CCA). We aimed to precisely quantify associations of near vs. far wall CCA-IMT with the risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD, defined as coronary heart disease or stroke) and their added predictive values. Methods and results: We analysed individual records of 41 941 participants from 16 prospective studies in the Proof-ATHERO consortium {mean age 61 years [standard deviation (SD) = 11]; 53% female; 16% prior CVD}. Mean baseline values of near and far wall CCA-IMT were 0.83 (SD = 0.28) and 0.82 (SD = 0.27) mm, differed by a mean of 0.02 mm (95% limits of agreement: -0.40 to 0.43), and were moderately correlated [r = 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-0.49). Over a median follow-up of 9.3 years, we recorded 10 423 CVD events. We pooled study-specific hazard ratios for CVD using random-effects meta-analysis. Near and far wall CCA-IMT values were approximately linearly associated with CVD risk. The respective hazard ratios per SD higher value were 1.18 (95% CI: 1.14-1.22; I² = 30.7%) and 1.20 (1.18-1.23; I² = 5.3%) when adjusted for age, sex, and prior CVD and 1.09 (1.07-1.12; I² = 8.4%) and 1.14 (1.12-1.16; I²=1.3%) upon multivariable adjustment (all P < 0.001). Assessing CCA-IMT at both walls provided a greater C-index improvement than assessing CCA-IMT at one wall only [+0.0046 vs. +0.0023 for near (P < 0.001), +0.0037 for far wall (P = 0.006)]. Conclusions: The associations of near and far wall CCA-IMT with incident CVD were positive, approximately linear, and similarly strong. Improvement in risk discrimination was highest when CCA-IMT was measured at both walls

Intima-media thickness at the near or far wall of the common carotid artery in cardiovascular risk assessment.

Acknowledgements: This paper was prepared using data of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (ARIC), the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS), and the Jackson Heart Study (JHS) obtained from the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC) and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of the ARIC, CHS, JHS, or NHLBI. The work of AC is supported in part by Ministero della Salute ricerca corrente. Results of this paper are included in the first author’s (L.S.) PhD thesis submitted at the Medical University of Innsbruck.AIMS: Current guidelines recommend measuring carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) at the far wall of the common carotid artery (CCA). We aimed to precisely quantify associations of near vs. far wall CCA-IMT with the risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD, defined as coronary heart disease or stroke) and their added predictive values. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed individual records of 41 941 participants from 16 prospective studies in the Proof-ATHERO consortium {mean age 61 years [standard deviation (SD) = 11]; 53% female; 16% prior CVD}. Mean baseline values of near and far wall CCA-IMT were 0.83 (SD = 0.28) and 0.82 (SD = 0.27) mm, differed by a mean of 0.02 mm (95% limits of agreement: -0.40 to 0.43), and were moderately correlated [r = 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-0.49). Over a median follow-up of 9.3 years, we recorded 10 423 CVD events. We pooled study-specific hazard ratios for CVD using random-effects meta-analysis. Near and far wall CCA-IMT values were approximately linearly associated with CVD risk. The respective hazard ratios per SD higher value were 1.18 (95% CI: 1.14-1.22; I² = 30.7%) and 1.20 (1.18-1.23; I² = 5.3%) when adjusted for age, sex, and prior CVD and 1.09 (1.07-1.12; I² = 8.4%) and 1.14 (1.12-1.16; I²=1.3%) upon multivariable adjustment (all P < 0.001). Assessing CCA-IMT at both walls provided a greater C-index improvement than assessing CCA-IMT at one wall only [+0.0046 vs. +0.0023 for near (P < 0.001), +0.0037 for far wall (P = 0.006)]. CONCLUSIONS: The associations of near and far wall CCA-IMT with incident CVD were positive, approximately linear, and similarly strong. Improvement in risk discrimination was highest when CCA-IMT was measured at both walls

Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Progression as Surrogate Marker for Cardiovascular Risk: Meta-Analysis of 119 Clinical Trials Involving 100 667 Patients

BACKGROUND: To quantify the association between effects of interventions on carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) progression and their effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. METHODS: We systematically collated data from randomized, controlled trials. cIMT was assessed as the mean value at the common-carotid-artery; if unavailable, the maximum value at the common-carotid-artery or other cIMT measures were used. The primary outcome was a combined CVD end point defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization procedures, or fatal CVD. We estimated intervention effects on cIMT progression and incident CVD for each trial, before relating the 2 using a Bayesian meta-regression approach. RESULTS: We analyzed data of 119 randomized, controlled trials involving 100 667 patients (mean age 62 years, 42% female). Over an average follow-up of 3.7 years, 12 038 patients developed the combined CVD end point. Across all interventions, each 10 μm/y reduction of cIMT progression resulted in a relative risk for CVD of 0.91 (95% Credible Interval, 0.87-0.94), with an additional relative risk for CVD of 0.92 (0.87-0.97) being achieved independent of cIMT progression. Taken together, we estimated that interventions reducing cIMT progression by 10, 20, 30, or 40 μm/y would yield relative risks of 0.84 (0.75-0.93), 0.76 (0.67-0.85), 0.69 (0.59-0.79), or 0.63 (0.52-0.74), respectively. Results were similar when grouping trials by type of intervention, time of conduct, time to ultrasound follow-up, availability of individual-participant data, primary versus secondary prevention trials, type of cIMT measurement, and proportion of female patients. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of intervention effects on cIMT progression predicted the degree of CVD risk reduction. This provides a missing link supporting the usefulness of cIMT progression as a surrogate marker for CVD risk in clinical trials