In vivo quantification of carotid artery wall dimensions: 3.0-Tesla MRI versus B-mode ultrasound imaging.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to compare common carotid mean wall thickness (MWT) measurements by 3.0-T MRI with B-mode ultrasound common carotid intima-media thickness (CCIMT) measurements, a validated surrogate marker for cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: B-mode ultrasound and 3.0-T MRI scans of the left and right common carotid arteries were repeated 3 times in 15 healthy younger volunteers (age, 26+/-2.6 years), 15 healthy older volunteers (age, 57+/-3.2 years), and 15 subjects with cardiovascular disease and carotid atherosclerosis (age, 63+/-9.8 years). MWT was 0.711 (SD, 0.229) mm and mean CCIMT was 0.800 (SD, 0.206) mm. MWT and CCIMT were highly correlated (r=0.89, P<0.001). The intraclass correlation coefficients for interscan and interobserver and intraobserver agreements of MRI MWT measurements were larger than 0.95 with small confidence intervals, indicating excellent reproducibility. Power calculations indicate that 89 subjects are required to detect a 4% difference in MRI MWT compared with 469 subjects to detect similar differences with ultrasound IMT in follow-up studies. CONCLUSIONS: The study data for carotid MRI and ultrasound IMT showed strong agreement, indicating that both modalities measure the thickness of the intima and media. The advantage of MRI over ultrasound is that the measurement variability is smaller, enabling smaller sample sizes and potentially shorter study duration in cardiovascular prevention trials.

Arterial stiffness, endothelial function and microcirculatory reactivity in healthy young males.

Large (C1) and small (C2) arterial stiffness has been suggested to parallel endothelial reactivity and has led researchers to suggest parameters of arterial stiffness may be alternative measures to brachial sonographic assessments of flow-mediated dilatation (FMD). However, past studies comparing these measures can be criticized. In addition to %FMD responses, we recorded concurrent hyperaemic responses of the microcirculation and both were compared with C1 and C2. Twenty-nine subjects 18-30 years of age were investigated. Radial blood pressure was recorded with a tonometer. Pulse waveform analysis was performed to calculate C1 and C2. These were compared with %FMD responses and responses of finger flux measured by laser Doppler fluxmetry (LDF); pulsatile finger volume measured by photoplethysmography (PPG); and palm skin temperature measured by infrared thermography (Tpalm) (i.e. microcirculatory responses). Responses were determined as % changes from control. We only found weak relationships between C1 and %FMD (r=0.4, P=0.04); C2 and %PPG (r=0.38, P=0.07); and C2 and %LDFdorsal (r=-0.38; P=0.04). Responses of %FMD weakly parallel those of C1. Neither C2 nor C1 are viable indicators of endothelial or microcirculatory reactivity (i.e. hyperaemic or venous constriction) in healthy, resting young males. These findings refute the claims that C1 and C2 are substitute measures to sonographic assessments of brachial FMD.