| Title |
Risk factors and utility of maximum carotid intima–media thickness as a surrogate marker for coronary artery stenosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s168926 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Keiji Hirai, Shigeki Imamura, Aizan Hirai, Kazuo Misumi, Susumu Ookawara, Yoshiyuki Morishita |
| Abstract |
This study investigated the factors associated with coronary artery stenosis in outpatients. Furthermore, the usefulness of maximum carotid intima-media thickness (maximum-IMT) as a surrogate marker of coronary artery stenosis was evaluated. We conducted a single-center retrospective study. A total of 601 outpatients (338 males; 263 females; mean age, 69.8±10.0 years) who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography between April 2006 and March 2012 were analyzed. The associations between coronary artery stenosis (≥75%) as determined by coronary computed tomography angiography and clinical and laboratory parameters were evaluated by multivariate logistic regression. Validation of maximum-IMT as measured by ultrasonography as a surrogate marker of coronary artery stenosis was analyzed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR: mL/min/1.73 m2) (odds ratio [OR] 0.985, p<0.01), diabetes mellitus (OR 1.98, p<0.05), and maximum-IMT (mm) (OR 1.76, p<0.01) were significantly associated with coronary artery stenosis (≥75%). In analysis of each group categorized by identified factors, such as renal impairment (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2) and diabetes mellitus, the ROC curve of maximum-IMT was significant in the group of patients with diabetes mellitus without renal impairment (p<0.01) (cutoff value of maximum-IMT, 2.0 mm; sensitivity, 0.74; and specificity, 0.54) but not in other groups. Renal impairment, diabetes mellitus, and increased maximum-IMT may be significant risk factors of coronary artery stenosis. Maximum-IMT as measured by ultrasonography may be a useful surrogate marker for coronary artery stenosis in patients with diabetes mellitus without renal impairment but not in other patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 August 2018.
All research outputs
#16,053,755
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#752
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,886
of 341,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#20
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.