MR Imaging of Carotid Artery Atherosclerosis: Updated Evidence on High-Risk Plaque Features and Emerging Trends

J.C. Benson; L. Saba; G. Bathla; W. Brinjikji; V. Nardi; G. Lanzino

doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7921

Abstract

SUMMARY: MR imaging is well-established as the criterion standard for carotid artery atherosclerosis imaging. The capability of MR imaging to differentiate numerous plaque components has been demonstrated, including those features that are associated with a high risk of sudden changes, thrombosis, or embolization. The field of carotid plaque MR imaging is constantly evolving, with continued insight into the imaging appearance and implications of various vulnerable plaque characteristics. This article will review the most up-to-date knowledge of these high-risk plaque features on MR imaging and will delve into 2 major emerging topics: the role of vulnerable plaques in cryptogenic strokes and the potential use of MR imaging to modify carotid endarterectomy treatment guidelines.

ABBREVIATIONS:

CAS: carotid artery stent placement
CEA: carotid endarterectomy
ESUS: embolic stroke of undetermined source
HR: hazard ratio
IPH: intraplaque hemorrhage
K^trans: volume transfer constant
LRNC: lipid-rich necrotic core
QSM: quantitative susceptibility mapping
TRFC: thinning or rupture of the fibrous cap

Carotid artery atherosclerosis is a major contributor to ischemic strokes, responsible for up to 20% of strokes and TIAs.¹ Historically, carotid artery disease was classified on the basis of the degree to which a plaque narrowed an arterial lumen. However, it is now known that certain histologic characteristics make some plaques more susceptible than others to sudden symptomatic changes. Patients with these “vulnerable” plaque features have a 3 times higher incidence of ipsilateral neurologic ischemic events than those with stable plaques.²

The field of MR imaging of carotid artery atherosclerotic plaques continues to rapidly evolve. Thus, it is crucial that physicians keep up to date on the current applications of such imaging. This review will highlight the most recent developments in different types of high-risk plaque. It will also touch on 2 emerging topics: the use of carotid plaque imaging in the setting of cryptogenic strokes and how plaque imaging may influence future changes in treatment recommendations for carotid atherosclerosis.

Overview of MR Imaging of Carotid Plaque

MR imaging is the criterion standard for carotid artery plaque characterization and is best able to differentiate between “soft” plaque components, such as lipid material, and hemorrhage.³ However, variations in plaque imaging protocols exist, typically based on institutional preference. For example, some institutions elect not to use dedicated carotid surface coils, limiting the ability to evaluate the fibrous cap.⁴ In general, both pre- and postcontrast sequences are obtained without or with fat saturation.⁵ Many institutions now use 3D sequences (including 3D TOF, 3D MPRAGE, and 3D FSE; eg, sampling perfection with application-optimized contrasts by using different flip angle evolutions [SPACE sequence; Siemens] and/or Cube; GE Healthcare) to allow multiplanar reformatting.^1,6

Regardless of institutional preferences, consensus guidelines on MR imaging of plaque do exist. These include the use of 1.5T or 3T scanners, in-plane resolution of 0.6 mm, and effective blood suppression. At minimum, a plaque protocol should be able to identify intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH), lipid rich necrotic core (LRNC), degree of stenosis, fibrous cap condition (disruption and/or ulceration), and plaque burden and distribution.³

Updates on High-Risk Features

Numerous high-risk carotid artery plaque features have been extensively described. Each of these features increases the risk of a plaque being symptomatic, leading to future ischemic neurologic events or causing accelerated plaque growth. Here, we will review these one by one, with commentary on the histologic features, imaging appearance, and recent insights of each feature.

Lipid-Rich Necrotic Core

An LRNC represents the earliest visible feature of vulnerable plaques. Atherosclerotic plaques begin as lipid streaks, in which lipid material deposits in the intima of arterial walls. Macrophages take up this lipid material, forming so-called “foam cells.” Excessive accumulation of such cells ultimately results in cell lysis and necrosis, leading to the formation of extracellular lipid pools, which eventually coalesce into an LRNC.⁷

On MR imaging, the LRNC tends to be mildly hypo- to mildly hyperintense to adjacent musculature on fat-suppressed T1-weighted images. LRNCs also lack markedly hyperintense signal on heavily T1-weighted images (namely MPRAGE images), signifying that superimposed plaque hemorrhage is absent (Fig 1). Specifically, LRNCs are slightly hypointense to adjacent muscle on MPRAGE images. Contrast-enhanced images can help distinguish an LRNC from the overlying fibrous cap; fibrous tissue enhances, while LRNCs do not.

FIG 1.

Example of an LRNC. Axial CTA image (A) demonstrates a peripherally calcified (solid arrows) plaque with a soft interior (dashed arrow). The corresponding axial-reformatted MPRAGE image (B) similarly demonstrates areas of calcifications with markedly low signal (solid arrows); the plaque interior lacks bright signal, ruling out hemorrhage (dashed arrow). T1 fat-saturated Cube image (C) shows hyperintense signal in the plaque interior (dashed arrow), compatible with an LRNC. Asterisks denote the vessel lumen.

In general, LRNC is less concerning than other high-risk plaque features. Nevertheless, LRNCs may be symptomatic. A 2020 meta-analysis, for example, found the hazard ratio (HR) of LRNC to be 2.73 (95% CI, 1.04–7.16) for recurrent stroke or TIA.⁸ In addition, LRNCs can increase in size or be precursors of higher-risk plaque features.⁹ Once a LRNC has formed, a plaque may become a higher grade, losing fibrous cap integrity or developing plaque hemorrhage or ulceration.

Treatment with high-intensity statins decreases the size of LRNCs, and this effect can be monitored in vivo using plaque imaging on MR imaging. The degree of expected lipid depletion is dependent on the duration of therapy. After 3 months, modest effects are typically observed.¹⁰ After 3 years, however, the LRNC volume and the percentage of overall plaque volume can decrease by as much as 50%.¹¹ This trend has been confirmed with a meta-analysis, in which no significant differences were found after 1–6 months or 7–12 months of therapy, but a significant decrease in LRNC volume was found after 1 year.¹²

Intraplaque Hemorrhage

IPH is thought to be caused by the breakdown of immature neovasculature, which commonly proliferates along the surface of a plaque. IPH remains the most validated imaging marker of a high-risk carotid artery plaque. It is a significant contributor to plaque growth, is associated with ipsilateral neurologic symptoms, and increases the risk of future strokes.

Historically, IPH was identifiable on T1-weighted MR images; hemorrhage was notably bright given the methemoglobin in the blood products. MPRAGE sequences were later developed to further highlight the T1 intensity within the IPH (Online Supplemental Data). More recently, some institutions have begun using simultaneous noncontrast angiography and intraplaque hemorrhage (SNAP) sequences, which provide high contrast between flowing blood and IPH.¹³

The association between IPH and ipsilateral neurologic ischemic events has been extensively documented.¹⁴ Recent studies have supported this evidence, with substantial HRs. A 2020 meta-analysis, for example, found the HR of IPH for recurrent stroke or TIA to be 7.14 (95% CI, 4.32–11.82).⁸ Another recent meta-analysis found that IPH increased the risk of ipsilateral stroke in both asymptomatic (HR = 7.9; 95% CI, 1.3–47.6) and symptomatic (HR = 10.2; 95% CI, 4.6–22.5) patients.¹⁵ Che et al¹⁶ found that IPH had a HR of 8.08 (95% CI, 3.65–17.91) for recurrent ischemic events. Some reports suggested that the brighter signal intensity in IPH was associated with increased ipsilateral ischemia.^17,18 A more recent study, however, refuted these findings.¹⁹

More is now known about when to expect IPH: It is more common in older men, smokers, and patients with hyperlipidemia and hypertension.²⁰ IPH is also more common in the left-sided carotid arteries for reasons that remain unclear.²¹ Recent studies have confirmed such findings. van Dam-Nolen et al,²² in a cohort of patients with symptomatic plaques causing mild-to-moderate stenosis, found both the presence of IPH (HR = 2.12; 95% CI: 1.02–4.44) and total plaque volume (HR = 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00–1.15) to be associated with recurrent ipsilateral strokes.

In recent years, there has also been a better understanding that plaques with IPH are often symptomatic, even when nonstenotic. For example, Nardi et al²⁰ assessed a cohort of patients that had undergone carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for symptomatic carotid atherosclerosis, subdivided into patients with mild (<50%), moderate (50%–69%), and severe (≥70%) stenosis. The authors found that IPH was significantly more common in patients with mild stenosis (15.7%) than in those with moderate (3.9%) or severe (2.5%) stenosis. Another study found that IPH was associated with ipsilateral ischemia in patients with <30% stenosis (OR = 5.68; 95% CI, 1.49–21.69), but no such association was found in arteries with >30% stenosis.²³ Nevertheless, larger plaques are more likely to develop IPH: Increased stenosis is independently associated with IPH on imaging (OR = 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01–1.03).²³

The signal related to IPH has drawn continued attention in studies across the years. In general, it seems increasingly clear that the MPRAGE signal related to IPH remains present on follow-up examinations in most patients. van den Bouwhuijsen et al,²⁴ for example, found that 94% of IPH remained present on subsequent examinations. Yamada et al,²⁵ similarly, found that 97% of plaques retained IPH on follow-up MRIs, with no significant change in volume noted with time (Fig 2). It is not clear why abnormal signal at the site of IPH persists across multiple examinations. Takaya et al²⁶ suggested that a relative lack of macrophages in a plaque would delay the degradation of blood products. Others believe that the signal reflects stagnant proteinaceous remnants of lytic blood and/or recurrent hemorrhage.²⁵ Signal characteristics on other sequences may be used to determine the chronicity of blood products. Chu et al,²⁷ for example, found that chronic IPH was hypointense on T1WI, T2WI, and TOF. More recently, quantitative T1 mapping has been used to distinguish acute and chronic IPH, with moderate (κ = 0.40, P = .028) agreement in terms of imaging classification.²⁸

FIG 2.

Example of persistent IPH in a 71-year-old man who presented with acute disorientation and unsteady gait. MR imaging of the brain at the time of admission (not shown) demonstrated multiple acute left cerebral infarcts. Axial CTA image (A) shows a mixed calcified (dashed arrow) and soft (solid arrows) plaque in the left ICA. Corresponding MPRAGE image (B) demonstrates IPH throughout the soft plaque components (solid arrows); the focal calcification is also noted (dashed arrow). The patient was started on dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and clopidogrel). One year later (C), the appearance of the IPH (solid arrows) and calcification (dashed arrow) was unchanged. Asterisks denote the vessel lumen.

Finally, recent studies have sought to use quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) in carotid plaque imaging to better delineate IPH. QSM is able to differentiate between paramagnetic (eg, iron within hemoglobin) and diamagnetic (eg, calcium) materials.²⁹ Volumes of both IPH and calcification detected on QSM have already been shown to agree with findings on conventional plaque MRA techniques.³⁰ In addition, QSM may help distinguish IPH and LRNC, both of which are hyperintense on T1WI. Ikebe et al,³¹ for example, found that IPH had a significantly higher signal intensity than LRNC, while calcifications demonstrated expectedly low signal intensity.

Ulcerations

A plaque ulceration is a defect in the fibrous cap of a plaque, defined as being an indentation, erosion, or fissuring of the luminal surface of the plaque. These defects are due to weakening of the cap, often due to local inflammation or hemodynamic stress. The result is of substantial clinical concern: Ulcerations expose the inner plaque contents to the arterial blood. This exposure can both rapidly de-stabilize the plaque and allow plaque contents to embolize to the brain.

Although the description of ulceration on imaging varies among studies, most authors define an ulcer as a cavitation into a plaque measuring at least 1–2 mm (Online Supplemental Data).³² The prevalence of plaque ulceration in symptomatic patients is up to 27%. Larger and more stenotic plaques, plaques with higher volumes of LRNC and/or IPH, and plaques with loss of fibrous cap integrity are more likely to develop ulcerations.³³ Also, ulcerations are more likely to affect the portion of the plaque proximal to the region of maximum stenosis.³⁴

Historically, ulcerations have been considered one of the main sources of cerebral microemboli. Most recent studies have concurred with this concept, showing that ulcers increase the risk of ipsilateral neurologic ischemic events. A 2017 meta-analysis, for example, found ulcerations to be strongly associated with ipsilateral ischemia, with ORs ranging from 1.5 to 4.9.³⁵ A 2020 study found that patients with plaque ulceration had greater severity of ischemic strokes.³⁶

However, some recent data on the clinical importance of ulcerations have been contradictory. van Dam-Nolen et al,²² also using data from the Plaque At Risk (PARISK) study, found that the presence of plaque ulceration was not a determinant of stroke in symptomatic plaques with <70% stenosis. Fisher et al³⁷ found that the prevalence of ulceration was similar in plaques associated with ipsilateral and contralateral symptoms (34% and 42%, respectively). Nevertheless, the bulk of evidence supports the notion that ulcerated plaques are more likely to cause symptoms and increase a patient’s risk of future strokes.

Loss of Fibrous Cap Integrity

Fibrous caps form early during atherosclerotic plaque development, in which smooth-muscle cells migrate toward the vessel lumen. The cap is functionally protective: It separates the soft plaque components, eg, LRNC and IPH, from blood in the vessel lumen. A thick, well-formed cap can typically withstand pulsatile hemodynamic forces and is a marker of plaque stability, while a thinned or disrupted cap is a high-risk feature that portends future ischemic events. Specifically, cap disruption can lead to fissuring, ulceration, or rupture and can expose the thrombogenic components of a plaque to both platelets and coagulation factors in the bloodstream.

On MR imaging, a fibrous cap is located along the surface of a plaque and is typically hypointense on TOF images, isointense on T1 and T2, and enhances on postcontrast images. In general, assessment of the fibrous cap requires high-resolution carotid plaque surface coils; the accuracy of identifying the fibrous cap with a standard coil is limited.⁴ Even with high-resolution surface coil imaging, the fibrous cap can be difficult to accurately assess. On imaging, therefore, loss of cap integrity is often combined under the umbrella of thinning or rupture of the fibrous cap (TRFC).

TRFC has been repeatedly shown to be associated with neurologic ischemic events. Recent meta-analyses have confirmed these findings.³⁸ In addition, recent studies have assessed the significance of plaque surface irregularity without specifically looking at TRFC. Li et al,³⁹ for example, found that irregular surfaces were found in more than half of plaques and that irregularities were associated with LRNC and IPH, as well as subsequent vascular events (HR = 11.02; 95% CI, 2.65–45.85).

Plaque Enhancement

Unstable plaques are often characterized by inflammation and/or neoangiogenesis. These often coexist: Inflammatory cells are typically located near regions of fibrous cap disruption, where neovascularization also occurs. Histologic evidence of plaque inflammation—particularly greater numbers of macrophages—is associated with neurologic symptoms. For example, there is a direct correlation between the number of nonlacunar brain infarcts and the quantity of macrophages.⁴⁰

On imaging, both fibrous tissue (ie, the fibrous cap) and tissue near the vessel adventitial boundary typically demonstrate enhancement in all plaques. Necrotic tissue (ie, the LRNC) is usually nonenhancing. Enhancement superimposed over a LRNC is considered pathologic and a marker of plaque vulnerability (Fig 3).⁴¹ Millon et al⁴² specifically found central enhancement to be a marker of either plaque rupture or loose fibrosis. Other authors have found that pathologic enhancement has been shown to represent either inflamed tissue or areas of neovascularization; thus, enhancement is often grouped together under the nomenclature of “plaque activity.”

FIG 3.

Example of pathologic plaque enhancement. Axial fat-saturated T1 Cube (A) and MPRAGE (B) images show a plaque in the left ICA, with both hemorrhagic (straight arrows) and nonhemorrhagic LRNC (curved arrows) regions. On the postgadolinium fat-saturated T1 Cube image (C), the LRNC component demonstrates marked enhancement (dashed arrow), while the hemorrhagic component does not (straight arrow). Asterisks denote the vessel lumen.

Historically, studies have focused on establishing plaque enhancement as a high-risk, pathologic finding. It was shown to correspond to multiple histologic markers of vulnerability, including neovascularization, macrophages, and loose fibrosis.⁴² Enhancement is also more common in symptomatic patients, while its absence is a negative predictor of cerebral ischemic events.⁴³

Recently, many studies have focused on the use of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging to detect and characterize atherosclerotic neovascularization.⁴⁴ Dynamic contrast images allow the analysis of the intraplaque pharmacokinetic parameter, the volume transfer constant (K^trans), which is representative of microvascular density, permeability, and flow. Studies have shown, for instance, that K^trans is associated with plaque types on the basis of the American Heart Association classifications.⁴⁵ Nevertheless, K^trans remains an emerging research field and will need to be further refined before being regularly used in clinical practice.

Contrast enhancement in the adventitial layer of carotid plaque has also been associated with an increased risk of stroke. In a study of 58 patients with carotid atherosclerosis, Wasserman⁴⁶ found that patients with adventitial enhancement had a significantly higher rate of ipsilateral stroke. The presence of adventitial enhancement in carotid plaque may indicate the presence of inflammation or neovascularization, both of which have been linked to plaque instability and an increased risk of stroke. The ability to detect adventitial enhancement on contrast-enhanced MR imaging may thus provide an additional tool for identifying high-risk carotid plaques and guiding appropriate management strategies.

Calcifications

Calcifications are commonly observed in atherosclerotic plaques and are found in up to 90% of atheromas.⁴⁷ On MR imaging, calcifications are markedly hypointense on all sequences, sometimes described as being “jet black” in appearance (Online Supplemental Data). Unlike the previously described plaque components, calcifications are thought to have beneficial effects on atherosclerosis.⁴⁸ Hunt et al,⁴⁹ for example, found that patients with calcified atherosclerotic plaques were more likely to be asymptomatic (P = .042). Larger, bulky calcifications specifically are more likely to be found in asymptomatic patients.⁵⁰ Thus, plaque calcifications are a marker of plaque stability, representing a more quiescent, low-risk form of atherosclerosis.

Much of the recent data on this presumption have agreed with this hypothesis. The aforementioned PARISK study, for example, found no association between the proportion of calcification and the risk of stroke.²² A recent meta-analysis by Baradaran et al³⁵ found that the patients with calcified carotid plaques had a lower incidence of stroke (OR = 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4–0.7). Zhang et al,⁵¹ in another meta-analysis, found calcified plaques to be much less likely to cause strokes than plaques with vulnerable features. Similarly, data from the Rotterdam Study found no association between carotid artery calcifications and stroke.⁵²

However, our understanding of this subject continues to evolve. Increasingly, it is thought that it is insufficient to characterize intraplaque calcifications solely on the basis of their binary presence or absence or total calcification volume.⁵³ Studies that use such simplified assessments failed to recognize the complex relationship between calcific and noncalcific components of atherosclerotic plaques. On CTA, for example, intraplaque calcifications have been categorized on the basis of their imaging appearances.⁵⁴ Using this classification, scattered microcalcifications can cause vulnerability by acting as an intraplaque stresser.⁵⁵ Moreover, the so-called rim sign, adventitial calcifications (<2-mm-thick) with a soft plaque component (≥2 mm), has been shown to be associated with intraplaque hemorrhage.^56,57

These classifications of intraplaque calcifications have not been validated on MR imaging and remain largely restricted to CT. Nevertheless, calcifications play a more nuanced role in atherosclerosis formation and stability than what was previously thought.

Emerging Trends

Many of the recent developments of carotid plaque imaging are beyond the scope of this review. However, there are 2 major emerging trends in MR imaging of carotid plaque that deserve specific review because they have the potential to substantially impact patient care: the role of vulnerable plaques in embolic strokes of undetermined source (ESUSs) and how MR imaging may influence treatment decisions. Here, we will give a brief review of these topics and discuss how recent literature may guide changes in diagnoses and/or treatment strategies.

ESUSs

ESUSs are defined as being embolic-type ischemic neurologic events in patients without a known etiology. On the basis of the definition established by the Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST),⁵⁸ “cryptogenic” strokes are restricted to patients with <50% stenosis of the ipsilateral carotid artery (ie, a “nonstenotic plaque”) who have no potential cardiogenic source of emboli and no other known stroke source. The terminology of such strokes varies. Some authors state that ESUSs constitute many of the so-called cryptogenic strokes, while others prefer that the term ESUSs replace the term “cryptogenic.”^59,60 ESUSs account for 16%–25% of strokes, are prone to recurrence, and tend to occur in younger patients.⁵⁹

Increasingly, researchers believe that many ESUSs may originate from nonstenotic ipsilateral carotid plaques with vulnerable features. Coutinho et al⁶⁰ noted that large-but-nonstenotic plaques were significantly more common in the ipsilateral carotid arteries in patients with ESUSs. Subsequent studies supporting this theory have been primarily based on CTA-based trials. Data from both the Identifying New Approaches to Optimize Thrombus Characterization for Predicting Early Recanalization and Reperfusion With IV Alteplase and Other Treatments Using Serial CT Angiography (INTERRSeCT) trial and the Systematic Evaluation of Patients Treated with Neurothrombectomy Devices for Acute Ischemic Stroke (STRATIS) registry, for example, found that nonstenotic plaques were significantly more common in the ipsilateral carotid artery compared with the contralateral side.^61,62

MR imaging data regarding plaque composition in the setting of ESUSs, however, remain sparse. Results from the Carotid Plaque Imaging in Acute Stroke (CAPIAS) study indicated that both a ruptured fibrous cap (HR = 4.91; 95 CI, 1.31–18.45) and IPH (HR = 4.37; 95% CI, 1.20–15.97) were associated with an increased risk of recurrent events in patients with ESUSs.⁶³ Other data from the same study found that high-risk plaque features were significantly more common in the artery ipsilateral to the infarcts compared with the contralateral artery (31% versus 12%, respectively).⁶⁴ Another study, by Larson et al,⁶⁵ found that patients with ESUSs and ipsilateral IPH had an annual rate of stroke recurrence of 9.5%; the rate was 2.5% in patients without IPH. Future studies, focusing on the MR imaging characteristics of plaques in patients with ESUSs should yield much more substantial data regarding the etiology of the strokes.

Carotid Plaque Composition and Treatment Guidelines

The decision regarding whether to perform a CEA is typically based on the degree of arterial stenosis and the risk of perioperative complications. Treatment guidelines are based on the results of the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) and the European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST). By means of these studies, eligibility for CEA or stent placement in symptomatic patients depends on the severity of stenosis, with surgery not considered for patients with <50% stenosis.^66,67 In the years that followed those trials, however, associations were found between the degree of stenosis and the presence of vulnerable plaque features.⁶⁸ Thus, the observed successes of the NASCET and ECST trials may have been partly due to treatment of high-risk plaques.

Because it is now known that many symptomatic plaques are nonstenotic by the NASCET criteria (Fig 4), there is a growing call for the modification of treatment guidelines. Specifically, many believe that imaging markers of plaque vulnerability should be considered in the determination of treatment eligibility. The most promising imaging features are IPH, ulceration, and maximum plaque thickness; LRNC, integrity of the fibrous cap, and some categories of intraplaque calcifications also have potential usefulness.⁵⁵

FIG 4.

Example of a symptomatic nonstenotic plaque. Axial DWI (A and B) of the brain demonstrates multiple tiny acute infarcts in the right cerebral hemisphere (arrows). 3D reformatted gadolinium bolus image (C) demonstrates a nonstenotic plaque in the proximal right ICA (dashed oval). Axial CTA image (D) shows a soft, noncalcified plaque. On MRA, MPRAGE image (E) shows that most of this plaque is composed of hemorrhagic material (solid arrow), with a small hypointense component representing a nonhemorrhagic lipid necrotic core (dashed arrow). Pre- (F) and postcontrast (G) T1 Cube images demonstrate a LRNC (solid arrows). Asterisks denote the vessel lumen.

Early data suggest that CEA in patients with relatively small plaques is a viable option. Nardi et al⁶⁹ reported on a cohort of patients that underwent CEA for nonstenotic (<50%), symptomatic atherosclerotic plaques, 80% of which had IPH. The authors reported no intraoperative complications and an annualized rate of recurrent stroke after CEA of 1.5%. A systematic review of CEAs performed for nonstenotic carotid plaques found that patients had no recurrent ipsilateral ischemic events in any of the 138 studied patients (mean follow-up, 36 months).⁷⁰ Nevertheless, the issue remains hotly debated. Additional studies are still needed to assess the feasibility, safety, and clinical usefulness of performing CEAs on nonstenotic atherosclerotic lesions.

Carotid plaque MRA can also be used to guide the decision between CEA and carotid artery stent placement (CAS). Although this topic remains in the developing stage, the available data suggest that CEA should be preferred to CAS in the setting of vulnerable plaques because CAS can lead to a higher risk of periprocedural events, including cerebral embolism and restenosis.^71⇓-73 A meta-analysis found that patients with IPH had higher composite outcomes of stroke, death, or myocardial infarction within 30 days of stent placement (8.1%) compared with those without IPH (2.1%) (OR = 4.45; 95% CI, 1.61–12.30; P < .01).⁷⁴

Finally, regarding medical management options, several recent trials have provided evidence strengthening conservative medical treatment of carotid disease, including the protective effects of high-dose statin therapy and anti-inflammatory therapy such as the interleukin-1β innate immunity pathway.^75⇓⇓-78 Recent meta-analyses provide evidence that atherosclerosis can be reversed with high-dose lipid-lowering therapy,⁷⁹ and high-dose statins may shift vulnerable plaque from high lipid content to a more stable calcified plaque.⁸⁰ Data from natural history studies suggest that IPH may override the beneficial effects of statin therapy, though the statin type and dose were neither randomized nor uniform.⁸¹ Currently, no prospective trials exist testing the hypothesis that the effects of IPH can be modified with very intensive lipid-lowering therapy.

Nevertheless, there is still a relative dearth of data on the topic of medical management for vulnerable carotid plaques, and definitive guidelines have yet to be established. Instead, many available conclusions have relied on expert opinion. For example, Holmes et al⁸² recommended that all patients with ESUSs should be treated with the same medications (high-dose statins and dual antiplatelet therapy for 3 weeks and aspirin for a year) but that MRA should be used to determine further treatment pathways. Specifically, the authors opined that patients with IPH and/or ulceration and repeat strokes should be considered for CEA. Hackam,⁸³ similarly, opined that revascularization for treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis should be reserved for some patients with vulnerable plaques, but he did not distinguish between high- and low-risk plaques in his recommendations for medical management.

CONCLUSIONS

MR imaging of carotid artery atherosclerotic plaques is both complex and continually expanding. During recent years, there have been substantial advances in knowledge about many of the well-known plaque features, ranging from high-risk components such as IPH and TRFC to generally stabilizing features such as calcifications. As this field continues to expand, physicians will need to stay informed about how such imaging features may eventually impact management strategies and treatment guidelines.

Footnotes

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text and PDF of this article at www.ajnr.org.

Indicates open access to non-subscribers at www.ajnr.org

References

1.↵
1. Brinjikji W,
2. Huston J,
3. Rabinstein AA, et al
. Contemporary carotid imaging: from degree of stenosis to plaque vulnerability. J Neurosurg 2016;124:27–42 doi:10.3171/2015.1.JNS142452 pmid:26230478
CrossRef PubMed
2.↵
1. Kamtchum-Tatuene J,
2. Wilman A,
3. Saqqur M, et al
. Carotid plaque with high-risk features in embolic stroke of undetermined source: systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke 2020;51:311–14 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.027272 pmid:31752616
CrossRef PubMed
3.↵
1. Saba L,
2. Yuan C,
3. Hatsukami TS, et al
; Vessel Wall Imaging Study Group of the American Society of Neuroradiology. Carotid artery wall imaging: perspective and guidelines from the ASNR Vessel Wall Imaging Study Group and Expert Consensus Recommendations of the American Society of Neuroradiology. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:E9–31 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5488 pmid:29326139
Abstract/FREE Full Text
4.↵
1. Brinjikji W,
2. DeMarco JK,
3. Shih R, et al
. Diagnostic accuracy of a clinical carotid plaque MR protocol using a neurovascular coil compared to a surface coil protocol. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018;48:1264–72 doi:10.1002/jmri.25984 pmid:29479763
CrossRef PubMed
5.↵
1. Fitzpatrick LA,
2. Berkovitz N,
3. Dos Santos MP, et al
. Vulnerable carotid plaque imaging and histopathology without a dedicated MRI receiver coil. Neuroradiol J 2017;30:120–28 doi:10.1177/1971400916678244 pmid:28071288
CrossRef PubMed
6.↵
1. Benson JC,
2. Cheek H,
3. Aubry MC, et al
. Cervical carotid plaque MRI: review of atherosclerosis imaging features and their histologic underpinnings. Clin Neuroradiol 2021;31:295–306 doi:10.1007/s00062-020-00987-y pmid:33398451
CrossRef PubMed
7.↵
1. Gui Y,
2. Zheng H,
3. Cao RY
. Foam cells in atherosclerosis: novel insights into its origins, consequences, and molecular mechanisms. Front Cardiovasc Med 2022;9:845942 doi:10.3389/fcvm.2022.845942 pmid:35498045
CrossRef PubMed
8.↵
1. Deng F,
2. Mu C,
3. Yang L, et al
. Carotid plaque magnetic resonance imaging and recurrent stroke risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020;99:e19377 doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000019377 pmid:32221065
CrossRef PubMed
9.↵
1. Takaya N,
2. Yuan C,
3. Chu B, et al
. Association between carotid plaque characteristics and subsequent ischemic cerebrovascular events: a prospective assessment with MRI—initial results. Stroke 2006;37:818–23 doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000204638.91099.91 pmid:16469957
Abstract/FREE Full Text
10.↵
1. Du R,
2. Cai J,
3. Zhao XQ, et al
. Early decrease in carotid plaque lipid content as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging during treatment of rosuvastatin. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2014;14:83 doi:10.1186/1471-2261-14-83 pmid:25022285
CrossRef PubMed
11.↵
1. Zhao XQ,
2. Dong L,
3. Hatsukami T, et al
. MR imaging of carotid plaque composition during lipid-lowering therapy: a prospective assessment of effect and time course. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2011;4:977–86 doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2011.06.013 pmid:21920335
Abstract/FREE Full Text
12.↵
1. Brinjikji W,
2. Lehman VT,
3. Kallmes DF, et al
. The effects of statin therapy on carotid plaque composition and volume: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neuroradiol 2017;44:234–40 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2016.12.004 pmid:28187866
CrossRef PubMed
13.↵
1. Wang J,
2. Börnert P,
3. Zhao H, et al
. Simultaneous noncontrast angiography and intraplaque hemorrhage (SNAP) imaging for carotid atherosclerotic disease evaluation. Magn Reson Med 2013;69:337–45 doi:10.1002/mrm.24254 pmid:22442116
CrossRef PubMed
14.↵
1. Geiger MA,
2. Flumignan RL,
3. Sobreira ML, et al
. Carotid plaque composition and the importance of non-invasive in imaging stroke prevention. Front Cardiovasc Med 2022;9:885483 doi:10.3389/fcvm.2022.885483 pmid:35651908
CrossRef PubMed
15.↵
1. Schindler A,
2. Schinner R,
3. Altaf N, et al
. Prediction of stroke risk by detection of hemorrhage in carotid plaques: meta-analysis of individual patient data. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2020;13(2 Pt 1):395–406 doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2019.03.028 pmid:31202755
CrossRef PubMed
16.↵
1. Che F,
2. Mi D,
3. Wang A, et al
. Extracranial carotid plaque hemorrhage predicts ipsilateral stroke recurrence in patients with carotid atherosclerosis: a study based on high-resolution vessel wall imaging MRI. BMC Neurol 2022;22:237 doi:10.1186/s12883-022-02758-3 pmid:35764942
CrossRef PubMed
17.↵
1. Wang X,
2. Sun J,
3. Zhao X, et al
; CARE-II Study Investigators. Ipsilateral plaques display higher T1 signals than contralateral plaques in recently symptomatic patients with bilateral carotid intraplaque hemorrhage. Atherosclerosis 2017;257:78–85 doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2017.01.001 pmid:28110259
CrossRef PubMed
18.↵
1. Yang D,
2. Liu Y,
3. Han Y, et al
. Signal of carotid intraplaque hemorrhage on MR T1-weighted imaging: association with acute cerebral infarct. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2020;41:836–43 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6498 pmid:32273265
Abstract/FREE Full Text
19.↵
1. Larson AS,
2. Brinjikji W,
3. Kroll NJ, et al
. Normalized intraplaque hemorrhage signal on MP-RAGE as a marker for acute ischemic neurological events. Neuroradiol J 2022;35:112–18 doi:10.1177/19714009211029263 pmid:34224247
CrossRef PubMed
20.↵
1. Nardi V,
2. Benson J,
3. Bois MC, et al
. Carotid plaques from symptomatic patients with mild stenosis is associated with intraplaque hemorrhage. Hypertens 2022;79:271–82 doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.121.18128 pmid:34878895
CrossRef PubMed
21.↵
1. Larson AS,
2. Brinjikji W,
3. Savastano L, et al
. Left-sided carotid arteries have a higher prevalence of intraplaque hemorrhage than right-sided: an asymmetric conundrum. Neuroradiol J 2020;33:494–500 doi:10.1177/1971400920970920 pmid:33283672
CrossRef PubMed
22.↵
1. van Dam-Nolen DH,
2. Truijman MT,
3. van der Kolk AG, et al
; PARISK Study Group. Carotid plaque characteristics predict recurrent ischemic stroke and TIA: the PARISK (Plaque At RISK) study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2022;15:1715–26 doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2022.04.003 pmid:36202450
CrossRef PubMed
23.↵
1. Larson AS,
2. Brinjikji W,
3. Savastano L, et al
. Carotid intraplaque hemorrhage and stenosis: at what stage of plaque progression does intraplaque hemorrhage occur, and when is it most likely to be associated with symptoms? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:1285–90 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7133 pmid:33888452
Abstract/FREE Full Text
24.↵
1. van den Bouwhuijsen QJ,
2. Selwaness M,
3. Tang H, et al
. Change in carotid intraplaque hemorrhage in community-dwelling subjects: a follow-up study using serial MR imaging. Radiology 2017;282:526–33 doi:10.1148/radiol.2016151806 pmid:27541684
CrossRef PubMed
25.↵
1. Yamada N,
2. Higashi M,
3. Otsubo R, et al
. Association between signal hyperintensity on T1-weighted MR imaging of carotid plaques and ipsilateral ischemic events. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:287–92 pmid:17296997
PubMed
26.↵
1. Takaya N,
2. Yuan C,
3. Chu B, et al
. Presence of intraplaque hemorrhage stimulates progression of carotid atherosclerotic plaques: a high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging study. Circulation 2005;111:2768–75 doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.504167 pmid:15911695
Abstract/FREE Full Text
27.↵
1. Chu B,
2. Kampschulte A,
3. Ferguson MS, et al
. Hemorrhage in the atherosclerotic carotid plaque: a high-resolution MRI study. Stroke 2004;35:1079–84 doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000125856.25309.86 pmid:15060318
Abstract/FREE Full Text
28.↵
1. Qiao H,
2. Li D,
3. Cao J, et al
. Quantitative evaluation of carotid atherosclerotic vulnerable plaques using in vivo T1 mapping cardiovascular magnetic resonaonce: validation by histology. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2020;22:38 doi:10.1186/s12968-020-00624-0 pmid:32434582
CrossRef PubMed
29.↵
1. Ruetten PP,
2. Cluroe AD,
3. Usman A, et al
. Simultaneous MRI water-fat separation and quantitative susceptibility mapping of carotid artery plaque pre- and post-ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide-uptake. Magn Reson Med 2020;84:686–97 doi:10.1002/mrm.28151 pmid:31961969
CrossRef PubMed
30.↵
1. Wang C,
2. Zhang Y,
3. Du J, et al
. Quantitative susceptibility mapping for characterization of intraplaque hemorrhage and calcification in carotid atherosclerotic disease. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020;52:534–41 doi:10.1002/jmri.27064 pmid:32039515
CrossRef PubMed
31.↵
1. Ikebe Y,
2. Ishimaru H,
3. Imai H, et al
. Quantitative susceptibility mapping for carotid atherosclerotic plaques: a pilot study. Magn Reson Med Sci 2020;19:135–40 doi:10.2463/mrms.mp.2018-0077 pmid:31155568
CrossRef PubMed
32.↵
1. Baradaran H,
2. Gupta A
. Extracranial vascular disease: carotid stenosis and plaque imaging. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2021;31:157–66 doi:10.1016/j.nic.2021.02.002 pmid:33902871
CrossRef PubMed
33.↵
1. Dilba K,
2. van Dam-Nolen DH,
3. van Dijk AC, et al
. Plaque composition as a predictor of plaque ulceration in carotid artery atherosclerosis: the Plaque At RISK study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:144–51 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6868 pmid:33214179
Abstract/FREE Full Text
34.↵
1. Rafailidis V,
2. Chryssogonidis I,
3. Tegos T, et al
. Imaging of the ulcerated carotid atherosclerotic plaque: a review of the literature. Insights Imaging 2017;8:213–25 doi:10.1007/s13244-017-0543-8 pmid:28160261
CrossRef PubMed
35.↵
1. Baradaran H,
2. Al-Dasuqi K,
3. Knight-Greenfield A, et al
. Association between carotid plaque features on CTA and cerebrovascular ischemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:2321–26 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5436 pmid:29074638
Abstract/FREE Full Text
36.↵
1. Cao X,
2. Yang Q,
3. Tang Y, et al
. Normalized wall index, intraplaque hemorrhage and ulceration of carotid plaques correlate with the severity of ischemic stroke. Atherosclerosis 2020;315:138–44 doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2020.10.896 pmid:33183741
CrossRef PubMed
37.↵
1. Fisher M,
2. Paganini-Hill A,
3. Martin A, et al
. Carotid plaque pathology: thrombosis, ulceration, and stroke pathogenesis. Stroke 2005;36:253–57 doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000152336.71224.21 pmid:15653581
Abstract/FREE Full Text
38.↵
1. Jiang B,
2. He D,
3. Zhang L, et al
. Risk prediction of cerebrovascular events with carotid plaque magneitc resonance analysis: a meta-analysis. J Neuroradiol 2019;46:117–23 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2018.05.003 pmid:29920350
CrossRef PubMed
39.↵
1. Li J,
2. Li D,
3. Yang D, et al
. Irregularity of carotid plaque surface predicts subsequent vascular event: a MRI study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020;52:185–94 doi:10.1002/jmri.27038 pmid:31944452
CrossRef PubMed
40.↵
1. Saba L,
2. Lai L,
3. Lucatelli P, et al
. Association between carotid artery plaque inflammation and brain MRI. J Neuroradiol 2020;47:203–09 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2018.10.004 pmid:30439395
CrossRef PubMed
41.↵
1. Kerwin WS,
2. Hatsukami T,
3. Yuan C, et al
. MRI of carotid atherosclerosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200:W304–13 doi:10.2214/AJR.12.8665 pmid:23436876
CrossRef PubMed
42.↵
1. Millon A,
2. Boussel L,
3. Brevet M, et al
. Clinical and histological significance of gadolinium enhancement in carotid atherosclerotic plaque. Stroke 2012;43:3023–28 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.662692 pmid:22923447
Abstract/FREE Full Text
43.↵
1. Papini GD,
2. Di Leo G,
3. Bandirali M, et al
. Is carotid plaque contrast enhancement on MRI predictive for cerebral or cardiovascular events? A prospective cohort study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2017;41:321–26 doi:10.1097/RCT.0000000000000506 pmid:27824664
CrossRef PubMed
44.↵
1. Cattaneo M,
2. Sun J,
3. Staub D, et al
. Imaging of carotid plaque neovascularization by contrast-enhanced ultrasound and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Cerebrovasc Dis 2019;48:140–48 doi:10.1159/000504042 pmid:31661690
CrossRef PubMed
45.↵
1. Ge X,
2. Zhou Z,
3. Zhao H, et al
. Evaluation of carotid plaque vulnerability in vivo: correlation between dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and MRI-modified AHA classification. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;46:870–76 doi:10.1002/jmri.25637 pmid:28120364
CrossRef PubMed
46.↵
1. Wasserman BA
. Advanced contrast-enhanced MRI for looking beyond the lumen to predict stroke: building a risk profile for carotid plaque. Stroke 2010;41:S12–16 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.596288 pmid:20876485
Abstract/FREE Full Text
47.↵
1. Ahmed M,
2. McPherson R,
3. Abruzzo A, et al
. Carotid artery calcification: what we know so far. Cureus 2021;13:e18938 doi:10.7759/cureus.18938 pmid:34815892
CrossRef PubMed
48.↵
1. Kwee RM
. Systematic review on the association between calcification in carotid plaques and clinical ischemic symptoms. J Vasc Surg 2010;51:1015–25 doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2009.08.072 pmid:20045615
CrossRef PubMed
49.↵
1. Hunt JL,
2. Fairman R,
3. Mitchell ME, et al
. Bone formation in carotid plaques: a clinicopathological study. Stroke 2002;33:1214–19 doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000013741.41309.67 pmid:11988593
Abstract/FREE Full Text
50.↵
1. Shi X,
2. Gao J,
3. Lv Q, et al
. Calcification in atherosclerotic plaque vulnerability: friend or foe? Front Physiol 2020;11:56 doi:10.3389/fphys.2020.00056 pmid:32116766
CrossRef PubMed
51.↵
1. Zhang Y,
2. Bai Y,
3. Xie J, et al
. Carotid plaque components and other carotid artery features associated with risk of stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2022;31:106857 doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2022.106857 pmid:36334373
CrossRef PubMed
52.↵
1. Bos D,
2. Arshi B,
3. van den Bouwhuijsen QJ, et al
. Atherosclerotic carotid plaque composition and incident stroke and coronary events. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021;77:1426–35 doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2021.01.038 pmid:33736825
CrossRef PubMed
53.↵
1. Saba L,
2. Nardi V,
3. Cau R, et al
. Carotid artery plaque calcifications: lessons from histopathology to diagnostic imaging. Stroke 2022;53:290–97 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.035692 pmid:34753301
CrossRef PubMed
54.↵
1. Saba L,
2. Chen H,
3. Cau R, et al
. Impact analysis of different CT configurations of carotid artery plaque calcifications on cerebrovascular events. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2022;43:272–79 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7401 pmid:35121588
Abstract/FREE Full Text
55.↵
1. Bos D,
2. van Dam-Nolen DH,
3. Gupta A, et al
. Advances in multimodality carotid plaque imaging: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;217:16–26 doi:10.2214/AJR.20.24869 pmid:33438455
CrossRef PubMed
56.↵
1. Benson JC,
2. Nardi V,
3. Madhavan AA, et al
. Reassessing the carotid artery plaque “rim sign” on CTA: a new analysis with histopathologic confirmation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2022;43:429–34 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7443 pmid:35210276
Abstract/FREE Full Text
57.↵
1. Eisenmenger LB,
2. Aldred BW,
3. Kim SE, et al
. Prediction of carotid intraplaque hemorrhage using adventitial calcification and plaque thickness on CTA. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:1496–503 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4765 pmid:27102316
Abstract/FREE Full Text
58.↵
1. Adams HP,
2. Bendixen BH,
3. Kappelle LJ, et al
. Classification of subtype of acute ischemic stroke: definitions for use in a multicenter clinical trial. TOAST—Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment. Stroke 1993;24:35–41 doi:10.1161/01.str.24.1.35 pmid:7678184
Abstract/FREE Full Text
59.↵
1. Hart RG,
2. Diener HC,
3. Coutts SB, et al
; Cryptogenic Stroke/ESUS International Working Group. Embolic strokes of undetermined source: the case for a new clinical construct. Lancet Neurol 2014;13:429–38 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70310-7 pmid:24646875
CrossRef PubMed
60.↵
1. Coutinho JM,
2. Derkatch S,
3. Potvin ARJ, et al
. Nonstenotic carotid plaque on CT angiography in patients with cryptogenic stroke. Neurology 2016;87:665–72 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000002978 pmid:27412144
CrossRef PubMed
61.↵
1. Ospel JM,
2. Singh N,
3. Marko M, et al
. Prevalence of ipsilateral nonstenotic carotid plaques on computed tomography angiography in embolic stroke of undetermined source. Stroke 2020;51:1743–49 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.029404 pmid:32375585
CrossRef PubMed
62.↵
1. Singh N,
2. Ospel J,
3. Mayank A, et al
; STRATIS Investigators. Nonstenotic carotid plaques in ischemic stroke: analysis of the STRATIS Registry. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:1645–52 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7218 pmid:34326103
Abstract/FREE Full Text
63.↵
1. Kopczak A,
2. Schindler A,
3. Sepp D, et al
. Complicated carotid artery plaques and risk of recurrent ischemic stroke or TIA. J Am Coll Cardiol 2022;79:2189–99 doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2022.03.376 pmid:35523659
CrossRef PubMed
64.↵
1. Kopczak A,
2. Schindler A,
3. Bayer-Karpinska A, et al
. Complicated carotid artery plaques as a cause of cryptogenic stroke. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:2212–22 doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.09.532 pmid:33153580
CrossRef PubMed
65.↵
1. Larson AS,
2. Nasr DM,
3. Rizvi A, et al
. Embolic stroke of undetermined source: the association with carotid intraplaque hemorrhage. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2021;14:506–08 doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.08.007 pmid:33011125
CrossRef PubMed
66.↵
1. Chaturvedi S,
2. Bruno A,
3. Feasby T, et al
; Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Carotid endarterectomy–an evidence-based review: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2005;65:794–801 doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000176036.07558.82 pmid:16186516
Abstract/FREE Full Text
67.↵
Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST). Lancet 1998;351:1379–87 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)09292-1 pmid:9593407
CrossRef PubMed
68.↵
1. Barnett HJ,
2. Taylor DW,
3. Haynes RB, et al
; North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med 1991;325:445–53 doi:10.1056/NEJM199108153250701 pmid:1852179
CrossRef PubMed
69.↵
1. Nardi V,
2. Benson JC,
3. Larson AS, et al
. Carotid artery endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic non-stenotic carotid artery disease. Stroke Vasc Neurol 2022;7:251–57 doi:10.1136/svn-2021-000939 pmid:35241631
Abstract/FREE Full Text
70.↵
1. Larson A,
2. Nardi V,
3. Brinjikji W, et al
. Endarterectomy for symptomatic non-stenotic carotids: a systematic review and descriptive analysis. Stroke Vasc Neurol 2022;7:6–12 doi:10.1136/svn-2021-001122 pmid:34244446
CrossRef PubMed
71.↵
1. Tokunaga K,
2. Tokunaga S,
3. Hara K, et al
. Intraplaque high-intensity signal on time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography and restenosis after carotid artery stenting. J Neurosurg 2022;136:1029–34 doi:10.3171/2021.4.JNS21546 pmid:34560643
CrossRef PubMed
72.↵
1. Yoshimura S,
2. Yamada K,
3. Kawasaki M, et al
. High-intensity signal on time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography indicates carotid plaques at high risk for cerebral embolism during stenting. Stroke 2011;42:3132–37 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.615708 pmid:21868725
Abstract/FREE Full Text
73.↵
1. Yoshimura S,
2. Yamada K,
3. Kawasaki M, et al
. Selection of carotid artery stenting or endarterectomy based on magnetic resonance plaque imaging reduced periprocedural adverse events. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;22:1082–87 doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2012.07.018 pmid:22939196
CrossRef PubMed
74.↵
1. Brinjikji W,
2. Lehman VT,
3. Huston J, et al
. The association between carotid intraplaque hemorrhage and outcomes of carotid stenting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurointerv Surg 2017;9:837–42 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012593 pmid:27540090
Abstract/FREE Full Text
75.↵
1. Naylor AR
. Time to rethink management strategies in asymptomatic carotid artery disease. Nat Rev Cardiol 2012;9:116–24 doi:10.1038/nrcardio.2011.151 pmid:21989048
CrossRef PubMed
76.↵
1. Ridker PM,
2. Everett BM,
3. Thuren T, et al
; CANTOS Trial Group. Antiinflammatory therapy with canakinumab for atherosclerotic disease. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1119–31 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1707914 pmid:28845751
CrossRef PubMed
77.↵
1. Abbott AL
. Medical (nonsurgical) intervention alone is now best for prevention of stroke associated with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis: results of a systematic review and analysis. Stroke 2009;40:e573–83 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.556068 pmid:19696421
Abstract/FREE Full Text
78.↵
1. Naylor AR,
2. Gaines PA,
3. Rothwell PM
. Who benefits most from intervention for asymptomatic carotid stenosis: patients or professionals? Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2009;37:625–32 doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2009.01.026 pmid:19345591
CrossRef PubMed
79.↵
1. Ibrahimi P,
2. Jashari F,
3. Bajraktari G, et al
. Ultrasound assessment of carotid plaque echogenicity response to statin therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Mol Sci 2015;16:10734–47 doi:10.3390/ijms160510734 pmid:25984600
CrossRef PubMed
80.↵
1. Mujaj B,
2. Bos D,
3. Selwaness M, et al
. Statin use is associated with carotid plaque composition: the Rotterdam Study. Int J Cardiol 2018;260:213–18 doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.02.111 pmid:29519676
CrossRef PubMed
81.↵
1. Underhill HR,
2. Yuan C,
3. Yarnykh VL, et al
. Arterial remodeling in the subclinical carotid artery disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2009;2:1381–89 doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2009.08.007 pmid:20083072
Abstract/FREE Full Text
82.↵
1. Holmes DR,
2. Alkhouli MA,
3. Klaas JP, et al
. Change of heart: the underexplored role of plaque hemorrhage in the evaluation of stroke of undetermined etiology. J Am Heart Assoc 2022;11:e025323 doi:10.1161/JAHA.122.025323 pmid:35475334
CrossRef PubMed
83.↵
1. Hackam DG
. Optimal medical management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Stroke 2021;52:2191–98 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.033994 pmid:33947208
CrossRef PubMed

Received March 29, 2023.
Accepted after revision May 14, 2023.

In this issue

Download PDF

Email Article

Citation Tools

Purchase

Cited By...

No citing articles found.

More in this TOC Section

Show more EXTRACRANIAL VASCULAR

[1] 1.↵
Brinjikji W,
Huston J,
Rabinstein AA, et al
. Contemporary carotid imaging: from degree of stenosis to plaque vulnerability. J Neurosurg 2016;124:27–42 doi:10.3171/2015.1.JNS142452 pmid:26230478
CrossRef PubMed

[2] Brinjikji W,

[3] Huston J,

[4] Rabinstein AA, et al

[5] 2.↵
Kamtchum-Tatuene J,
Wilman A,
Saqqur M, et al
. Carotid plaque with high-risk features in embolic stroke of undetermined source: systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke 2020;51:311–14 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.027272 pmid:31752616
CrossRef PubMed

[6] Kamtchum-Tatuene J,

[7] Wilman A,

[8] Saqqur M, et al

[9] 3.↵
Saba L,
Yuan C,
Hatsukami TS, et al
; Vessel Wall Imaging Study Group of the American Society of Neuroradiology. Carotid artery wall imaging: perspective and guidelines from the ASNR Vessel Wall Imaging Study Group and Expert Consensus Recommendations of the American Society of Neuroradiology. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:E9–31 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5488 pmid:29326139
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[10] Saba L,

[11] Yuan C,

[12] Hatsukami TS, et al

[13] 4.↵
Brinjikji W,
DeMarco JK,
Shih R, et al
. Diagnostic accuracy of a clinical carotid plaque MR protocol using a neurovascular coil compared to a surface coil protocol. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018;48:1264–72 doi:10.1002/jmri.25984 pmid:29479763
CrossRef PubMed

[14] Brinjikji W,

[15] DeMarco JK,

[16] Shih R, et al

[17] 5.↵
Fitzpatrick LA,
Berkovitz N,
Dos Santos MP, et al
. Vulnerable carotid plaque imaging and histopathology without a dedicated MRI receiver coil. Neuroradiol J 2017;30:120–28 doi:10.1177/1971400916678244 pmid:28071288
CrossRef PubMed

[18] Fitzpatrick LA,

[19] Berkovitz N,

[20] Dos Santos MP, et al

[21] 6.↵
Benson JC,
Cheek H,
Aubry MC, et al
. Cervical carotid plaque MRI: review of atherosclerosis imaging features and their histologic underpinnings. Clin Neuroradiol 2021;31:295–306 doi:10.1007/s00062-020-00987-y pmid:33398451
CrossRef PubMed

[22] Benson JC,

[23] Cheek H,

[24] Aubry MC, et al

[25] 7.↵
Gui Y,
Zheng H,
Cao RY
. Foam cells in atherosclerosis: novel insights into its origins, consequences, and molecular mechanisms. Front Cardiovasc Med 2022;9:845942 doi:10.3389/fcvm.2022.845942 pmid:35498045
CrossRef PubMed

[26] Gui Y,

[27] Zheng H,

[28] Cao RY

[29] 8.↵
Deng F,
Mu C,
Yang L, et al
. Carotid plaque magnetic resonance imaging and recurrent stroke risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020;99:e19377 doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000019377 pmid:32221065
CrossRef PubMed

[30] Deng F,

[31] Mu C,

[32] Yang L, et al

[33] 9.↵
Takaya N,
Yuan C,
Chu B, et al
. Association between carotid plaque characteristics and subsequent ischemic cerebrovascular events: a prospective assessment with MRI—initial results. Stroke 2006;37:818–23 doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000204638.91099.91 pmid:16469957
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[34] Takaya N,

[35] Yuan C,

[36] Chu B, et al

[37] 10.↵
Du R,
Cai J,
Zhao XQ, et al
. Early decrease in carotid plaque lipid content as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging during treatment of rosuvastatin. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2014;14:83 doi:10.1186/1471-2261-14-83 pmid:25022285
CrossRef PubMed

[38] Du R,

[39] Cai J,

[40] Zhao XQ, et al

[41] 11.↵
Zhao XQ,
Dong L,
Hatsukami T, et al
. MR imaging of carotid plaque composition during lipid-lowering therapy: a prospective assessment of effect and time course. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2011;4:977–86 doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2011.06.013 pmid:21920335
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[42] Zhao XQ,

[43] Dong L,

[44] Hatsukami T, et al

[45] 12.↵
Brinjikji W,
Lehman VT,
Kallmes DF, et al
. The effects of statin therapy on carotid plaque composition and volume: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neuroradiol 2017;44:234–40 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2016.12.004 pmid:28187866
CrossRef PubMed

[46] Brinjikji W,

[47] Lehman VT,

[48] Kallmes DF, et al

[49] 13.↵
Wang J,
Börnert P,
Zhao H, et al
. Simultaneous noncontrast angiography and intraplaque hemorrhage (SNAP) imaging for carotid atherosclerotic disease evaluation. Magn Reson Med 2013;69:337–45 doi:10.1002/mrm.24254 pmid:22442116
CrossRef PubMed

[50] Wang J,

[51] Börnert P,

[52] Zhao H, et al

[53] 14.↵
Geiger MA,
Flumignan RL,
Sobreira ML, et al
. Carotid plaque composition and the importance of non-invasive in imaging stroke prevention. Front Cardiovasc Med 2022;9:885483 doi:10.3389/fcvm.2022.885483 pmid:35651908
CrossRef PubMed

[54] Geiger MA,

[55] Flumignan RL,

[56] Sobreira ML, et al

[57] 15.↵
Schindler A,
Schinner R,
Altaf N, et al
. Prediction of stroke risk by detection of hemorrhage in carotid plaques: meta-analysis of individual patient data. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2020;13(2 Pt 1):395–406 doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2019.03.028 pmid:31202755
CrossRef PubMed

[58] Schindler A,

[59] Schinner R,

[60] Altaf N, et al

[61] 16.↵
Che F,
Mi D,
Wang A, et al
. Extracranial carotid plaque hemorrhage predicts ipsilateral stroke recurrence in patients with carotid atherosclerosis: a study based on high-resolution vessel wall imaging MRI. BMC Neurol 2022;22:237 doi:10.1186/s12883-022-02758-3 pmid:35764942
CrossRef PubMed

[62] Che F,

[63] Mi D,

[64] Wang A, et al

[65] 17.↵
Wang X,
Sun J,
Zhao X, et al
; CARE-II Study Investigators. Ipsilateral plaques display higher T1 signals than contralateral plaques in recently symptomatic patients with bilateral carotid intraplaque hemorrhage. Atherosclerosis 2017;257:78–85 doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2017.01.001 pmid:28110259
CrossRef PubMed

[66] Wang X,

[67] Sun J,

[68] Zhao X, et al

[69] 18.↵
Yang D,
Liu Y,
Han Y, et al
. Signal of carotid intraplaque hemorrhage on MR T1-weighted imaging: association with acute cerebral infarct. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2020;41:836–43 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6498 pmid:32273265
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[70] Yang D,

[71] Liu Y,

[72] Han Y, et al

[73] 19.↵
Larson AS,
Brinjikji W,
Kroll NJ, et al
. Normalized intraplaque hemorrhage signal on MP-RAGE as a marker for acute ischemic neurological events. Neuroradiol J 2022;35:112–18 doi:10.1177/19714009211029263 pmid:34224247
CrossRef PubMed

[74] Larson AS,

[75] Brinjikji W,

[76] Kroll NJ, et al

[77] 20.↵
Nardi V,
Benson J,
Bois MC, et al
. Carotid plaques from symptomatic patients with mild stenosis is associated with intraplaque hemorrhage. Hypertens 2022;79:271–82 doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.121.18128 pmid:34878895
CrossRef PubMed

[78] Nardi V,

[79] Benson J,

[80] Bois MC, et al

[81] 21.↵
Larson AS,
Brinjikji W,
Savastano L, et al
. Left-sided carotid arteries have a higher prevalence of intraplaque hemorrhage than right-sided: an asymmetric conundrum. Neuroradiol J 2020;33:494–500 doi:10.1177/1971400920970920 pmid:33283672
CrossRef PubMed

[82] Larson AS,

[83] Brinjikji W,

[84] Savastano L, et al

[85] 22.↵
van Dam-Nolen DH,
Truijman MT,
van der Kolk AG, et al
; PARISK Study Group. Carotid plaque characteristics predict recurrent ischemic stroke and TIA: the PARISK (Plaque At RISK) study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2022;15:1715–26 doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2022.04.003 pmid:36202450
CrossRef PubMed

[86] van Dam-Nolen DH,

[87] Truijman MT,

[88] van der Kolk AG, et al

[89] 23.↵
Larson AS,
Brinjikji W,
Savastano L, et al
. Carotid intraplaque hemorrhage and stenosis: at what stage of plaque progression does intraplaque hemorrhage occur, and when is it most likely to be associated with symptoms? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:1285–90 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7133 pmid:33888452
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[90] Larson AS,

[91] Brinjikji W,

[92] Savastano L, et al

[93] 24.↵
van den Bouwhuijsen QJ,
Selwaness M,
Tang H, et al
. Change in carotid intraplaque hemorrhage in community-dwelling subjects: a follow-up study using serial MR imaging. Radiology 2017;282:526–33 doi:10.1148/radiol.2016151806 pmid:27541684
CrossRef PubMed

[94] van den Bouwhuijsen QJ,

[95] Selwaness M,

[96] Tang H, et al

[97] 25.↵
Yamada N,
Higashi M,
Otsubo R, et al
. Association between signal hyperintensity on T1-weighted MR imaging of carotid plaques and ipsilateral ischemic events. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:287–92 pmid:17296997
PubMed

[98] Yamada N,

[99] Higashi M,

[100] Otsubo R, et al

[101] 26.↵
Takaya N,
Yuan C,
Chu B, et al
. Presence of intraplaque hemorrhage stimulates progression of carotid atherosclerotic plaques: a high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging study. Circulation 2005;111:2768–75 doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.504167 pmid:15911695
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[102] Takaya N,

[103] Yuan C,

[104] Chu B, et al

[105] 27.↵
Chu B,
Kampschulte A,
Ferguson MS, et al
. Hemorrhage in the atherosclerotic carotid plaque: a high-resolution MRI study. Stroke 2004;35:1079–84 doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000125856.25309.86 pmid:15060318
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[106] Chu B,

[107] Kampschulte A,

[108] Ferguson MS, et al

[109] 28.↵
Qiao H,
Li D,
Cao J, et al
. Quantitative evaluation of carotid atherosclerotic vulnerable plaques using in vivo T1 mapping cardiovascular magnetic resonaonce: validation by histology. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2020;22:38 doi:10.1186/s12968-020-00624-0 pmid:32434582
CrossRef PubMed

[110] Qiao H,

[111] Li D,

[112] Cao J, et al

[113] 29.↵
Ruetten PP,
Cluroe AD,
Usman A, et al
. Simultaneous MRI water-fat separation and quantitative susceptibility mapping of carotid artery plaque pre- and post-ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide-uptake. Magn Reson Med 2020;84:686–97 doi:10.1002/mrm.28151 pmid:31961969
CrossRef PubMed

[114] Ruetten PP,

[115] Cluroe AD,

[116] Usman A, et al

[117] 30.↵
Wang C,
Zhang Y,
Du J, et al
. Quantitative susceptibility mapping for characterization of intraplaque hemorrhage and calcification in carotid atherosclerotic disease. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020;52:534–41 doi:10.1002/jmri.27064 pmid:32039515
CrossRef PubMed

[118] Wang C,

[119] Zhang Y,

[120] Du J, et al

[121] 31.↵
Ikebe Y,
Ishimaru H,
Imai H, et al
. Quantitative susceptibility mapping for carotid atherosclerotic plaques: a pilot study. Magn Reson Med Sci 2020;19:135–40 doi:10.2463/mrms.mp.2018-0077 pmid:31155568
CrossRef PubMed

[122] Ikebe Y,

[123] Ishimaru H,

[124] Imai H, et al

[125] 32.↵
Baradaran H,
Gupta A
. Extracranial vascular disease: carotid stenosis and plaque imaging. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2021;31:157–66 doi:10.1016/j.nic.2021.02.002 pmid:33902871
CrossRef PubMed

[126] Baradaran H,

[127] Gupta A

[128] 33.↵
Dilba K,
van Dam-Nolen DH,
van Dijk AC, et al
. Plaque composition as a predictor of plaque ulceration in carotid artery atherosclerosis: the Plaque At RISK study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:144–51 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6868 pmid:33214179
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[129] Dilba K,

[130] van Dam-Nolen DH,

[131] van Dijk AC, et al

[132] 34.↵
Rafailidis V,
Chryssogonidis I,
Tegos T, et al
. Imaging of the ulcerated carotid atherosclerotic plaque: a review of the literature. Insights Imaging 2017;8:213–25 doi:10.1007/s13244-017-0543-8 pmid:28160261
CrossRef PubMed

[133] Rafailidis V,

[134] Chryssogonidis I,

[135] Tegos T, et al

[136] 35.↵
Baradaran H,
Al-Dasuqi K,
Knight-Greenfield A, et al
. Association between carotid plaque features on CTA and cerebrovascular ischemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:2321–26 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5436 pmid:29074638
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[137] Baradaran H,

[138] Al-Dasuqi K,

[139] Knight-Greenfield A, et al

[140] 36.↵
Cao X,
Yang Q,
Tang Y, et al
. Normalized wall index, intraplaque hemorrhage and ulceration of carotid plaques correlate with the severity of ischemic stroke. Atherosclerosis 2020;315:138–44 doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2020.10.896 pmid:33183741
CrossRef PubMed

[141] Cao X,

[142] Yang Q,

[143] Tang Y, et al

[144] 37.↵
Fisher M,
Paganini-Hill A,
Martin A, et al
. Carotid plaque pathology: thrombosis, ulceration, and stroke pathogenesis. Stroke 2005;36:253–57 doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000152336.71224.21 pmid:15653581
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[145] Fisher M,

[146] Paganini-Hill A,

[147] Martin A, et al

[148] 38.↵
Jiang B,
He D,
Zhang L, et al
. Risk prediction of cerebrovascular events with carotid plaque magneitc resonance analysis: a meta-analysis. J Neuroradiol 2019;46:117–23 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2018.05.003 pmid:29920350
CrossRef PubMed

[149] Jiang B,

[150] He D,

[151] Zhang L, et al

[152] 39.↵
Li J,
Li D,
Yang D, et al
. Irregularity of carotid plaque surface predicts subsequent vascular event: a MRI study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020;52:185–94 doi:10.1002/jmri.27038 pmid:31944452
CrossRef PubMed

[153] Li J,

[154] Li D,

[155] Yang D, et al

[156] 40.↵
Saba L,
Lai L,
Lucatelli P, et al
. Association between carotid artery plaque inflammation and brain MRI. J Neuroradiol 2020;47:203–09 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2018.10.004 pmid:30439395
CrossRef PubMed

[157] Saba L,

[158] Lai L,

[159] Lucatelli P, et al

[160] 41.↵
Kerwin WS,
Hatsukami T,
Yuan C, et al
. MRI of carotid atherosclerosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200:W304–13 doi:10.2214/AJR.12.8665 pmid:23436876
CrossRef PubMed

[161] Kerwin WS,

[162] Hatsukami T,

[163] Yuan C, et al

[164] 42.↵
Millon A,
Boussel L,
Brevet M, et al
. Clinical and histological significance of gadolinium enhancement in carotid atherosclerotic plaque. Stroke 2012;43:3023–28 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.662692 pmid:22923447
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[165] Millon A,

[166] Boussel L,

[167] Brevet M, et al

[168] 43.↵
Papini GD,
Di Leo G,
Bandirali M, et al
. Is carotid plaque contrast enhancement on MRI predictive for cerebral or cardiovascular events? A prospective cohort study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2017;41:321–26 doi:10.1097/RCT.0000000000000506 pmid:27824664
CrossRef PubMed

[169] Papini GD,

[170] Di Leo G,

[171] Bandirali M, et al

[172] 44.↵
Cattaneo M,
Sun J,
Staub D, et al
. Imaging of carotid plaque neovascularization by contrast-enhanced ultrasound and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Cerebrovasc Dis 2019;48:140–48 doi:10.1159/000504042 pmid:31661690
CrossRef PubMed

[173] Cattaneo M,

[174] Sun J,

[175] Staub D, et al

[176] 45.↵
Ge X,
Zhou Z,
Zhao H, et al
. Evaluation of carotid plaque vulnerability in vivo: correlation between dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and MRI-modified AHA classification. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;46:870–76 doi:10.1002/jmri.25637 pmid:28120364
CrossRef PubMed

[177] Ge X,

[178] Zhou Z,

[179] Zhao H, et al

[180] 46.↵
Wasserman BA
. Advanced contrast-enhanced MRI for looking beyond the lumen to predict stroke: building a risk profile for carotid plaque. Stroke 2010;41:S12–16 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.596288 pmid:20876485
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[181] Wasserman BA

[182] 47.↵
Ahmed M,
McPherson R,
Abruzzo A, et al
. Carotid artery calcification: what we know so far. Cureus 2021;13:e18938 doi:10.7759/cureus.18938 pmid:34815892
CrossRef PubMed

[183] Ahmed M,

[184] McPherson R,

[185] Abruzzo A, et al

[186] 48.↵
Kwee RM
. Systematic review on the association between calcification in carotid plaques and clinical ischemic symptoms. J Vasc Surg 2010;51:1015–25 doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2009.08.072 pmid:20045615
CrossRef PubMed

[187] Kwee RM

[188] 49.↵
Hunt JL,
Fairman R,
Mitchell ME, et al
. Bone formation in carotid plaques: a clinicopathological study. Stroke 2002;33:1214–19 doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000013741.41309.67 pmid:11988593
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[189] Hunt JL,

[190] Fairman R,

[191] Mitchell ME, et al

[192] 50.↵
Shi X,
Gao J,
Lv Q, et al
. Calcification in atherosclerotic plaque vulnerability: friend or foe? Front Physiol 2020;11:56 doi:10.3389/fphys.2020.00056 pmid:32116766
CrossRef PubMed

[193] Shi X,

[194] Gao J,

[195] Lv Q, et al

[196] 51.↵
Zhang Y,
Bai Y,
Xie J, et al
. Carotid plaque components and other carotid artery features associated with risk of stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2022;31:106857 doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2022.106857 pmid:36334373
CrossRef PubMed

[197] Zhang Y,

[198] Bai Y,

[199] Xie J, et al

[200] 52.↵
Bos D,
Arshi B,
van den Bouwhuijsen QJ, et al
. Atherosclerotic carotid plaque composition and incident stroke and coronary events. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021;77:1426–35 doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2021.01.038 pmid:33736825
CrossRef PubMed

[201] Bos D,

[202] Arshi B,

[203] van den Bouwhuijsen QJ, et al

[204] 53.↵
Saba L,
Nardi V,
Cau R, et al
. Carotid artery plaque calcifications: lessons from histopathology to diagnostic imaging. Stroke 2022;53:290–97 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.035692 pmid:34753301
CrossRef PubMed

[205] Saba L,

[206] Nardi V,

[207] Cau R, et al

[208] 54.↵
Saba L,
Chen H,
Cau R, et al
. Impact analysis of different CT configurations of carotid artery plaque calcifications on cerebrovascular events. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2022;43:272–79 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7401 pmid:35121588
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[209] Saba L,

[210] Chen H,

[211] Cau R, et al

[212] 55.↵
Bos D,
van Dam-Nolen DH,
Gupta A, et al
. Advances in multimodality carotid plaque imaging: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;217:16–26 doi:10.2214/AJR.20.24869 pmid:33438455
CrossRef PubMed

[213] Bos D,

[214] van Dam-Nolen DH,

[215] Gupta A, et al

[216] 56.↵
Benson JC,
Nardi V,
Madhavan AA, et al
. Reassessing the carotid artery plaque “rim sign” on CTA: a new analysis with histopathologic confirmation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2022;43:429–34 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7443 pmid:35210276
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[217] Benson JC,

[218] Nardi V,

[219] Madhavan AA, et al

[220] 57.↵
Eisenmenger LB,
Aldred BW,
Kim SE, et al
. Prediction of carotid intraplaque hemorrhage using adventitial calcification and plaque thickness on CTA. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:1496–503 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4765 pmid:27102316
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[221] Eisenmenger LB,

[222] Aldred BW,

[223] Kim SE, et al

[224] 58.↵
Adams HP,
Bendixen BH,
Kappelle LJ, et al
. Classification of subtype of acute ischemic stroke: definitions for use in a multicenter clinical trial. TOAST—Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment. Stroke 1993;24:35–41 doi:10.1161/01.str.24.1.35 pmid:7678184
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[225] Adams HP,

[226] Bendixen BH,

[227] Kappelle LJ, et al

[228] 59.↵
Hart RG,
Diener HC,
Coutts SB, et al
; Cryptogenic Stroke/ESUS International Working Group. Embolic strokes of undetermined source: the case for a new clinical construct. Lancet Neurol 2014;13:429–38 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70310-7 pmid:24646875
CrossRef PubMed

[229] Hart RG,

[230] Diener HC,

[231] Coutts SB, et al

[232] 60.↵
Coutinho JM,
Derkatch S,
Potvin ARJ, et al
. Nonstenotic carotid plaque on CT angiography in patients with cryptogenic stroke. Neurology 2016;87:665–72 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000002978 pmid:27412144
CrossRef PubMed

[233] Coutinho JM,

[234] Derkatch S,

[235] Potvin ARJ, et al

[236] 61.↵
Ospel JM,
Singh N,
Marko M, et al
. Prevalence of ipsilateral nonstenotic carotid plaques on computed tomography angiography in embolic stroke of undetermined source. Stroke 2020;51:1743–49 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.029404 pmid:32375585
CrossRef PubMed

[237] Ospel JM,

[238] Singh N,

[239] Marko M, et al

[240] 62.↵
Singh N,
Ospel J,
Mayank A, et al
; STRATIS Investigators. Nonstenotic carotid plaques in ischemic stroke: analysis of the STRATIS Registry. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:1645–52 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A7218 pmid:34326103
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[241] Singh N,

[242] Ospel J,

[243] Mayank A, et al

[244] 63.↵
Kopczak A,
Schindler A,
Sepp D, et al
. Complicated carotid artery plaques and risk of recurrent ischemic stroke or TIA. J Am Coll Cardiol 2022;79:2189–99 doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2022.03.376 pmid:35523659
CrossRef PubMed

[245] Kopczak A,

[246] Schindler A,

[247] Sepp D, et al

[248] 64.↵
Kopczak A,
Schindler A,
Bayer-Karpinska A, et al
. Complicated carotid artery plaques as a cause of cryptogenic stroke. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:2212–22 doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.09.532 pmid:33153580
CrossRef PubMed

[249] Kopczak A,

[250] Schindler A,

[251] Bayer-Karpinska A, et al

[252] 65.↵
Larson AS,
Nasr DM,
Rizvi A, et al
. Embolic stroke of undetermined source: the association with carotid intraplaque hemorrhage. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2021;14:506–08 doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.08.007 pmid:33011125
CrossRef PubMed

[253] Larson AS,

[254] Nasr DM,

[255] Rizvi A, et al

[256] 66.↵
Chaturvedi S,
Bruno A,
Feasby T, et al
; Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Carotid endarterectomy–an evidence-based review: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2005;65:794–801 doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000176036.07558.82 pmid:16186516
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[257] Chaturvedi S,

[258] Bruno A,

[259] Feasby T, et al

[260] 67.↵
Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST). Lancet 1998;351:1379–87 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)09292-1 pmid:9593407
CrossRef PubMed

[261] 68.↵
Barnett HJ,
Taylor DW,
Haynes RB, et al
; North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med 1991;325:445–53 doi:10.1056/NEJM199108153250701 pmid:1852179
CrossRef PubMed

[262] Barnett HJ,

[263] Taylor DW,

[264] Haynes RB, et al

[265] 69.↵
Nardi V,
Benson JC,
Larson AS, et al
. Carotid artery endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic non-stenotic carotid artery disease. Stroke Vasc Neurol 2022;7:251–57 doi:10.1136/svn-2021-000939 pmid:35241631
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[266] Nardi V,

[267] Benson JC,

[268] Larson AS, et al

[269] 70.↵
Larson A,
Nardi V,
Brinjikji W, et al
. Endarterectomy for symptomatic non-stenotic carotids: a systematic review and descriptive analysis. Stroke Vasc Neurol 2022;7:6–12 doi:10.1136/svn-2021-001122 pmid:34244446
CrossRef PubMed

[270] Larson A,

[271] Nardi V,

[272] Brinjikji W, et al

[273] 71.↵
Tokunaga K,
Tokunaga S,
Hara K, et al
. Intraplaque high-intensity signal on time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography and restenosis after carotid artery stenting. J Neurosurg 2022;136:1029–34 doi:10.3171/2021.4.JNS21546 pmid:34560643
CrossRef PubMed

[274] Tokunaga K,

[275] Tokunaga S,

[276] Hara K, et al

[277] 72.↵
Yoshimura S,
Yamada K,
Kawasaki M, et al
. High-intensity signal on time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography indicates carotid plaques at high risk for cerebral embolism during stenting. Stroke 2011;42:3132–37 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.615708 pmid:21868725
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[278] Yoshimura S,

[279] Yamada K,

[280] Kawasaki M, et al

[281] 73.↵
Yoshimura S,
Yamada K,
Kawasaki M, et al
. Selection of carotid artery stenting or endarterectomy based on magnetic resonance plaque imaging reduced periprocedural adverse events. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;22:1082–87 doi:10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2012.07.018 pmid:22939196
CrossRef PubMed

[282] Yoshimura S,

[283] Yamada K,

[284] Kawasaki M, et al

[285] 74.↵
Brinjikji W,
Lehman VT,
Huston J, et al
. The association between carotid intraplaque hemorrhage and outcomes of carotid stenting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurointerv Surg 2017;9:837–42 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012593 pmid:27540090
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[286] Brinjikji W,

[287] Lehman VT,

[288] Huston J, et al

[289] 75.↵
Naylor AR
. Time to rethink management strategies in asymptomatic carotid artery disease. Nat Rev Cardiol 2012;9:116–24 doi:10.1038/nrcardio.2011.151 pmid:21989048
CrossRef PubMed

[290] Naylor AR

[291] 76.↵
Ridker PM,
Everett BM,
Thuren T, et al
; CANTOS Trial Group. Antiinflammatory therapy with canakinumab for atherosclerotic disease. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1119–31 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1707914 pmid:28845751
CrossRef PubMed

[292] Ridker PM,

[293] Everett BM,

[294] Thuren T, et al

[295] 77.↵
Abbott AL
. Medical (nonsurgical) intervention alone is now best for prevention of stroke associated with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis: results of a systematic review and analysis. Stroke 2009;40:e573–83 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.556068 pmid:19696421
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[296] Abbott AL

[297] 78.↵
Naylor AR,
Gaines PA,
Rothwell PM
. Who benefits most from intervention for asymptomatic carotid stenosis: patients or professionals? Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2009;37:625–32 doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2009.01.026 pmid:19345591
CrossRef PubMed

[298] Naylor AR,

[299] Gaines PA,

[300] Rothwell PM

[301] 79.↵
Ibrahimi P,
Jashari F,
Bajraktari G, et al
. Ultrasound assessment of carotid plaque echogenicity response to statin therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Mol Sci 2015;16:10734–47 doi:10.3390/ijms160510734 pmid:25984600
CrossRef PubMed

[302] Ibrahimi P,

[303] Jashari F,

[304] Bajraktari G, et al

[305] 80.↵
Mujaj B,
Bos D,
Selwaness M, et al
. Statin use is associated with carotid plaque composition: the Rotterdam Study. Int J Cardiol 2018;260:213–18 doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.02.111 pmid:29519676
CrossRef PubMed

[306] Mujaj B,

[307] Bos D,

[308] Selwaness M, et al

[309] 81.↵
Underhill HR,
Yuan C,
Yarnykh VL, et al
. Arterial remodeling in the subclinical carotid artery disease. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2009;2:1381–89 doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2009.08.007 pmid:20083072
Abstract/FREE Full Text

[310] Underhill HR,

[311] Yuan C,

[312] Yarnykh VL, et al

[313] 82.↵
Holmes DR,
Alkhouli MA,
Klaas JP, et al
. Change of heart: the underexplored role of plaque hemorrhage in the evaluation of stroke of undetermined etiology. J Am Heart Assoc 2022;11:e025323 doi:10.1161/JAHA.122.025323 pmid:35475334
CrossRef PubMed

[314] Holmes DR,

[315] Alkhouli MA,

[316] Klaas JP, et al

[317] 83.↵
Hackam DG
. Optimal medical management of asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Stroke 2021;52:2191–98 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.033994 pmid:33947208
CrossRef PubMed

[318] Hackam DG

Main menu

User menu

Search

American Journal of Neuroradiology

MR Imaging of Carotid Artery Atherosclerosis: Updated Evidence on High-Risk Plaque Features and Emerging Trends

Abstract

ABBREVIATIONS:

Overview of MR Imaging of Carotid Plaque

Updates on High-Risk Features

Lipid-Rich Necrotic Core

Intraplaque Hemorrhage

Ulcerations

Loss of Fibrous Cap Integrity

Plaque Enhancement

Calcifications

Emerging Trends

ESUSs

Carotid Plaque Composition and Treatment Guidelines

CONCLUSIONS

Footnotes

References

In this issue

Citation Manager Formats

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Similar Articles

News and Updates

Resources

Opportunities

American Society of Neuroradiology

Main menu

User menu

Search

MR Imaging of Carotid Artery Atherosclerosis: Updated Evidence on High-Risk Plaque Features and Emerging Trends

Abstract

ABBREVIATIONS:

Overview of MR Imaging of Carotid Plaque

Updates on High-Risk Features

Lipid-Rich Necrotic Core

Intraplaque Hemorrhage

Ulcerations

Loss of Fibrous Cap Integrity

Plaque Enhancement

Calcifications

Emerging Trends

ESUSs

Carotid Plaque Composition and Treatment Guidelines

CONCLUSIONS

Footnotes

References

In this issue

Citation Manager Formats

Jump to section

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Similar Articles

News and Updates

Resources

Opportunities

American Society of Neuroradiology