Response: Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Measurements in Intervention Studies

Abstract

HomeStrokeVol. 35, No. 5Ultrasound Measurement of Atherosclerosis Free AccessLetterPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessLetterPDF/EPUBUltrasound Measurement of Atherosclerosis J. David Spence, MD, FRCPC, FAHA J. David SpenceJ. David Spence Director of Stroke Prevention and Atherosclerosis Research Centre, Robarts Research Institute, Prof. Neurology and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Western Ontario Search for more papers by this author Originally published25 Mar 2004https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000125715.47831.37Stroke. 2004;35:e87–e88Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: March 25, 2004: Previous Version 1 To the Editor:The recent review of intima-media thickness (IMT) measurements by Bots et al,1 while presenting cogent arguments for use of maximum versus mean carotid IMT for studies of interventions, failed to discuss important limitations of IMT. They claim as an important advantage of IMT, as opposed to morbidity and mortality as end-points, the considerable reduction in sample size and duration of study needed to show efficacy of new interventions; however they neglect to mention methodology that has significant advantages compared with IMT, namely the measurement of carotid plaque.IMT is very insensitive to change in plaque, because plaque grows along the carotid in the axis of flow 2.4 times faster than it thickens.2 Thus, measurement of plaque, as opposed to measurement of IMT, detects change with treatment much more readily.It is also very important to understand that ultrasound measurements of various aspects of atherosclerosis such as stenosis, plaque, or IMT assay biologically distinct phenomena. The main determinants of IMT are age and blood pressure; multiple regression with traditional risk factors gives an R2 of only 0.15 to 0.17 for IMT,3 compared with an R2 of 0.52 for carotid plaque area.4,5 This leads to important distinctions that must be made both for genetic studies of atherosclerosis and for studies of interventions aimed at atherosclerosis. These issues were discussed in a recent paper in Stroke.6Total carotid plaque area is a stronger predictor of outcomes than IMT: patients in the top quartile of plaque area have 3.5 times the risk of stroke, death, or myocardial infarction when compared with patients in the lowest quartile,7 after adjustment for age, sex, blood pressure, cholesterol, smoking, diabetes, homocysteine, and treatment for lipids and blood pressure; in contrast, patients in the top quintile of IMT had a relative risk of 3.15 versus the lowest quintile, after adjustment for a smaller panel of risk factors.3While IMT represents end-organ disease in the artery wall, it consists mainly of media and correlates poorly with coronary disease;8 it represents mainly hypertensive medial hypertrophy and correlates better with left ventricular mass than with coronary stenosis.9 Carotid plaque correlates better with coronary artery disease than does IMT.10,11For the most successful study of carotid IMT, Bots et al provide sample size estimates ranging from 468 per group for a parallel clinical trial with an effect size of 30% over 2 years, to 30 per group for a 100% effect size over 3 years. This is far inferior to measurement of plaque: study of 2-D plaque area requires sample sizes of 150 per group for a 30% effect size over 2 years,2 and the study of 3-D plaque volume can show significant changes in 3 months in 20 patients per group with an effect size of 100% (presented at the AHA stroke meeting in February 2004).Instead of fussing over what is the best way to use IMT, a 1980s technology, it would be better to move to 3-D ultrasound measurement of plaque volume12 for evaluating effects of interventions aimed at atherosclerosis. For genetic studies, it is important to distinguish among noninvasive phenotypes, as they will be influenced differently by genetic factors affecting blood pressure, oxidative stress, lipids, and other factors affecting atherosclerosis.61 Bots ML, Evans GW, Riley WA, Grobee DE. Carotid intima-media thickness measurements in intervention studies. Design options, progression rates and sample size considerations: a point of view. Stroke. 2003; 34: 2985–2994.LinkGoogle Scholar2 Barnett PA, Spence JD, Manuck SB, Jennings JR. Psychological stress and the progression of carotid atherosclerosis. J Hypertens. 1997; 15: 49–55.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 O’Leary DH, Polak JF, Kronmal RA, Manolio TA, Burke GL, Wolfson SK Jr. Carotid-artery intima and media thickness as a risk factor for myocardial infarction and stroke in older adults. N Engl J Med. 1999; 340: 14–22.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Spence JD, Barnett PA, Bulman DE, Hegele RA. An approach to ascertain probands with a nontraditional risk factor for carotid atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis. 1999; 144: 429–434.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 Spence JD, Ban MR, Hegele RA. Lipoprotein lipase (LPL) gene variation and progression of carotid artery plaque. Stroke. 2003; 34: 1178–1182.Google Scholar6 Spence JD, Hegele RA. Noninvasive phenotypes of atherosclerosis: similar windows, but different views. Stroke. 2004; 35: 649–653.LinkGoogle Scholar7 Spence JD, Eliasziw M, DiCicco M, Hackam DG, Galir R, Lohmann T. Carotid plaque area: a tool for targeting and evaluating vascular preventive therapy. Stroke. 2002; 33: 2916–2922.LinkGoogle Scholar8 Adams MR, Nakagomi A, Keech A, Robinson J, McCredie R, Bailey BP, Freedman SB, Celermajer DS. Carotid intima-media thickness is only weakly correlated with the extent and severity of coronary artery disease. Circulation. 1995; 92: 2127–2134.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Megnien JL, Simon A, Gariepy J, Denarie N, Cocaul M, Linhart A, Levenson J. Preclinical changes of extracoronary arterial structures as indicators of coronary atherosclerosis in men. J Hypertens. 1998; 16: 157–163.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10 Ebrahim S, Papacosta O, Whincup P, Wannamethee G, Walker M, Nicolaides AN, Dhanjil S, Griffin M, Belcaro G, Rumley A, Lowe GD. Carotid plaque, intima media thickness, cardiovascular risk factors, and prevalent cardiovascular disease in men and women: the British Regional Heart Study. Stroke. 1999; 30: 841–850.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 Aminbakhsh A, Frohlich J, Mancini GBJ. Detection of early atherosclerosis with B mode ultrasonography: assessment of a new quantitative approach. Clin Invest Med. 1999; 22: 265–274.MedlineGoogle Scholar12 Landry A, Spence JD, Fenster A. Measurement of carotid plaque volume by 3-dimensional ultrasound. Stroke. In press.Google ScholarstrokeahaStrokeStrokeStroke0039-24991524-4628Lippincott Williams & WilkinsResponse: Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Measurements in Intervention StudiesBots Michiel L., , MD, PhD01052004First, on behalf of Drs Evans, Riley, Grobbee, and myself, I would like to thank Dr David Spence for his supportive but critical remarks on our paper. He indicates that in our paper we failed to address the measurement of carotid plaque in randomized controlled clinical trials. Indeed, our paper was on carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) measurements rather than focusing on plaques. However, in our discussion of the paper we provided a paragraph discussing some aspects of why our review was based on CIMT measurements and not plaque measurements. The main issues were that, when compared with plaque changes, CIMT is an established endpoint for efficacy studies; that relatively uniform definitions of CIMT exist, compared with much greater variety in plaque definitions across studies; that maximum CIMT measurements do capture plaque information, especially in recently developed elaborate protocols.1,2 Importantly, the paper discussed the pros and cons given that a trial is designed with CIMT progression as primary outcome.We did not intend to address which minimally invasive or noninvasive measurement of the vasculature is the best measurement for use in randomized trials on the efficacy of interventions. Such a paper does indeed need a balanced discussion of the pros and cons of various techniques and approaches, such as CIMT, plaque measurement, coronary calcifications, and MRI for measurement of central aortic atherosclerosis. Apart from the techniques, issues around the ability to measure change over time comes into play.In his letter, Spence provides strong arguments for using 2-D and 3-D plaque measurements in trials rather than CIMT. Based on our experience, we tend to disagree with some of the arguments, given that they are based on a limited set of references. In contrast to what Spence writes, we showed that smoking and elevated lipids, apart from age and blood pressure, were already related to increased CIMT at the age of 30 years.2 Also, the magnitude of the increased cardiovascular risks related to upper quintile CIMT measurements compared with the lowest quintile has been described as at least 4.8 in fully adjusted models.3 Furthermore, plaque measurements in the Rotterdam study were not better in predicting risk of stroke than CIMT; in fact, the reverse was true.4 Finally, when viewing the entire literature, there have been studies showing no association of CIMT with coronary heart disease, but also studies showing modest or even strong relations with coronary heart disease.The noninvasive measurement of plaque is promising and important in research on determinants of atherosclerosis and its associated risks. We fully see the benefit of using 2-D and 3-D techniques in single and multiple center trials performed in a variety of populations. And indeed the data from Spence’s group on that issue is important and challenging, and certainly merits further application in other trials by his and other groups. In light of the discussion, a direct comparison with the CIMT technique would be ideal. In fact, this is currently being done in a randomized controlled trial performed by Dr P. Verhoef at the Wageningen University in the Netherlands with a main objective to study the effect of folic acid supplementation on CIMT progression (the FACIT study).Yet, one should remember that the CIMT approach does provide information on risk even when no plaque is present. Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Chen X, Lin M, Cui H, Chen Y, van Engelen A, de Bruijne M, Azarpazhooh M, Sohrevardi S, Chow T, Spence J and Chiu B (2020) Three-dimensional ultrasound evaluation of the effects of pomegranate therapy on carotid plaque texture using locality preserving projection, Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 10.1016/j.cmpb.2019.105276, 184, (105276), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2020. Lin M, Cui H, Chen W, van Engelen A, de Bruijne M, Azarpazhooh M, Sohrevardi S, Spence J and Chiu B (2020) Longitudinal assessment of carotid plaque texture in three-dimensional ultrasound images based on semi-supervised graph-based dimensionality reduction and feature selection, Computers in Biology and Medicine, 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2019.103586, 116, (103586), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2020. Melton P, Carless M, Curran J, Dyer T, Göring H, Kent J, Drigalenko E, Johnson M, MacCluer J, Moses E, Comuzzie A, Mahaney M, O’Leary D, Blangero J and Almasy L (2013) Genetic Architecture of Carotid Artery Intima-Media Thickness in Mexican Americans, Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics, 6:2, (211-221), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2013. Liao Y, Lin H, Guo Y, Yu M, Liu C and Juo S (2010) Sex-differential genetic effect of phosphodiesterase 4D (PDE4D) on carotid atherosclerosis, BMC Medical Genetics, 10.1186/1471-2350-11-93, 11:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2010. Krasinski A, Chiu B, Spence J, Fenster A and Parraga G (2009) Three-dimensional Ultrasound Quantification of Intensive Statin Treatment of Carotid Atherosclerosis, Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2009.05.017, 35:11, (1763-1772), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2009. Inoue K, Matsumoto M, Shono T, Toyokawa S and Moriki A (2007) Increased Intima Media Thickness and Atherosclerotic Plaques in the Carotid Artery as Risk Factors for Silent Brain Infarcts, Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases, 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2006.08.001, 16:1, (14-20), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2007. Faramawi M, Gustat J, Wildman R, Rice J, Johnson E and Sherwin R (2007) Relation Between Depressive Symptoms and Common Carotid Artery Atherosclerosis in American Persons ≥65 Years of Age††This report was prepared using a limited-access data set obtained by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of the Cardiovascular Health Study or the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute., The American Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.12.090, 99:11, (1610-1613), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2007. Fan A, Paul-Labrador M, Merz C, Iribarren C and Dwyer J (2006) Smoking status and common carotid artery intima-medial thickness among middle-aged men and women based on ultrasound measurement: a cohort study, BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 10.1186/1471-2261-6-42, 6:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2006. Ainsworth C, Blake C, Tamayo A, Beletsky V, Fenster A and Spence J (2005) 3D Ultrasound Measurement of Change in Carotid Plaque Volume, Stroke, 36:9, (1904-1909), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2005. Spence J (2008) Point/Counterpoint: The Role of Carotid Ultrasound, Preventive Cardiology, 10.1111/j.1520-037X.2005.03908.x, 8:2, (118-121), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2005. Lin H, Tsai P, Lin R, Khor G, Sheu S, Juo S and Gaetano C (2010) Sex Differential Genetic Effect of Chromosome 9p21 on Subclinical Atherosclerosis, PLoS ONE, 10.1371/journal.pone.0015124, 5:11, (e15124) May 2004Vol 35, Issue 5 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000125715.47831.37PMID: 15044766 Originally publishedMarch 25, 2004 PDF download Advertisement