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

Impact Damage Identification on Composite Structures

Impacts are an important hazard for composite structures in aerospace applications. Various methods are developed for detection of impacts, which can be done in geometrically more complex structures. A number of challenges prohibits a further analysis of impacts, like the energy associated and the required action to avoid immediate or delayed catastrophic failure. The challenges include both the algorithms to reconstruct the energy, and the sensors capturing the response. In the current research, an impact identification algorithm is developed, using both Piezoelectric Wafer Active Sensors and optical sensors. Initially, drop weight impacts of various energies are applied on a homogeneous thin aluminium plate and on a quasi-isotropic thin carbon fibre reinforced plastic plate. The objective is to compare the performance of the various sensor methods and explore the abilities to reconstruct not only the location but also the impact energy. In a second stage, impacts are applied to a geometrically complex, full-scale aircraft horizontal tail plain component. Parallel to the experimental work, numerical models are developed to assist the reconstruction. The first results show that the optical fibres have potential, as the signal to noise ratio is high. However, the signals are not yet of sufficient quality to proceed to force or energy reconstruction and are below the performance known from piezoelectric sensors in a pitch catch setting

Non-adherence to the rule of 3 does not increase the risk of adverse events in esophageal dilation

Background and Aims Although the rule of 3 is recommended to minimize the risk of perforation when esophageal dilation is performed using bougie dilators, there are no data to validate its use. Our aim was to investigate the association between the rule of 3 and adverse events (AEs) in esophageal dilation. Methods A retrospective chart review in patients who underwent esophageal bougie or balloon dilation between December 1991 and February 2013 at a tertiary hospital was performed. Data collection included patient demographics, stricture and procedural characteristics, AEs, and follow-up. Univariate logistic regression models were used to assess the risk of AEs and perforations. Results A total of 297 patients (median age, 63 years; 60% men) underwent 2216 esophageal bougie or balloon dilations. Major AEs occurred in 22 (1%) dilation sessions, including 11 (0.5%) perforations, 4 (0.2%) fistulas, 3 (0.1%) hospitalizations for pain management, 2 (0.09%) clinically significant hemorrhages, 1 (0.04%) fever, and 1 (0.04%) tracheoesophageal voice prosthesis leak. Mean duration of treatment was 43.2 months (standard deviation, 47.7 months). Most strictures were benign (n = 275; 93%) and complex in nature (n = 198; 67%). Non-adherence to the rule of 3 occurred in 190 (13%) dilations with bougie dilators. Non-adherence was not associated with a higher rate of major AEs (1/190, 0.5% vs 15/953, 1.6%; P =.18) and perforations (0/190, 0% vs 7/952, 0.7%; P =.18). Gender, complex strictures, location of the stricture, type of dilator, and additional interventions were also not associated with major AEs or perforations. However, malignant strictures were associated with an increased risk of major AEs (odds ratio, 3.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-12.0) and perforations (odds ratio, 8.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-31.9). Conclusions Non-adherence to the rule of 3 does not appear to increase the risk of AEs, particularly perforation, after esophageal dilation using bougie dilators. Caution is needed with the dilation of malignant strictures, as there is an increased risk of perforations and AEs. However, large prospective studies are needed to verify the results of this study