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

A Clinical Decision Support Tool for Familial Hypercholesterolemia Based on Physician Input

Objective: To develop clinical decision support (CDS) for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), based on physician input obtained by a mixed methods approach. Introduction: Awareness, detection, and control of FH—a relatively common genetic disorder—is low. Clinical decision support could address knowledge gaps and provide point-of-care guidance for the management of FH. Methods: A 16-question survey that assessed familiarity with FH and sought input on potential content of the CDS tool was emailed to 1161 clinicians including 208 cardiologists. In addition, 4 physician focus groups were held to gather input on the structure and form of the CDS tool. This study took place between September 12, 2016, and January 16, 2017. Results: The response rate to the survey was 18.1%. Clinicians were overwhelmingly (97.6%) in favor of a CDS tool that assists in managing patients with FH at the point of care and this was confirmed in the focus group discussions. Key themes emerged during the focus groups including providers' knowledge and understanding of FH, facilitators and barriers to implementing a CDS tool, and suggestions for its design and content. Conclusion: Clinicians were supportive of development of a CDS tool to assist with the evaluation and treatment of FH and provided feedback related to the design and implementation of such a tool

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

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

Association of Intima‐Media Thickness Measured at the Common Carotid Artery With Incident Carotid Plaque: Individual Participant Data Meta‐Analysis of 20 Prospective Studies

Background The association between common carotid artery intima‐media thickness (CCA‐IMT) and incident carotid plaque has not been characterized fully. We therefore aimed to precisely quantify the relationship between CCA‐IMT and carotid plaque development. Methods and Results We undertook an individual participant data meta‐analysis of 20 prospective studies from the Proof‐ATHERO (Prospective Studies of Atherosclerosis) consortium that recorded baseline CCA‐IMT and incident carotid plaque involving 21 494 individuals without a history of cardiovascular disease and without preexisting carotid plaque at baseline. Mean baseline age was 56 years (SD, 9 years), 55% were women, and mean baseline CCA‐IMT was 0.71 mm (SD, 0.17 mm). Over a median follow‐up of 5.9 years (5th–95th percentile, 1.9–19.0 years), 8278 individuals developed first‐ever carotid plaque. We combined study‐specific odds ratios (ORs) for incident carotid plaque using random‐effects meta‐analysis. Baseline CCA‐IMT was approximately log‐linearly associated with the odds of developing carotid plaque. The age‐, sex‐, and trial arm–adjusted OR for carotid plaque per SD higher baseline CCA‐IMT was 1.40 (95% CI, 1.31–1.50; I2=63.9%). The corresponding OR that was further adjusted for ethnicity, smoking, diabetes, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, low‐ and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, and lipid‐lowering and antihypertensive medication was 1.34 (95% CI, 1.24–1.45; I2=59.4%; 14 studies; 16 297 participants; 6381 incident plaques). We observed no significant effect modification across clinically relevant subgroups. Sensitivity analysis restricted to studies defining plaque as focal thickening yielded a comparable OR (1.38 [95% CI, 1.29–1.47]; I2=57.1%; 14 studies; 17 352 participants; 6991 incident plaques). Conclusions Our large‐scale individual participant data meta‐analysis demonstrated that CCA‐IMT is associated with the long‐term risk of developing first‐ever carotid plaque, independent of traditional cardiovascular risk factors