Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Karger Publishers, Cerebrovascular Diseases, 4(27), p. 361-367

DOI: 10.1159/000202013

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Country-Based Reference Values and Impact of Cardiovascular Risk Factors on Carotid Intima-Media Thickness in a French Population: The ‘Paroi Artérielle et Risque Cardio-Vasculaire’ (PARC) Study

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

<i>Aim:</i> To define reference values for mean common carotid artery intima-media thickness (CCAIMT<sub>mean</sub>) from subjects without conventional cardiovascular risk factors. <i>Methods:</i> This nationwide study involved cardiologists at 246 centres in France. A total of 5,433 subjects with and without conventional cardiovascular risk factors participated. <i>Results:</i> In subjects without risk factors, CCAIMT<sub>mean</sub> was 0.712 ± 0.122 mm in men and 0.682 ± 0.105 mm in women (p < 0.0001). Age explained 27.7% (men) and 33.9% (women) of the variance in CCAIMT<sub>mean</sub>. Each 10-year increment in age was associated with a sex-adjusted increase in CCAIMT<sub>mean</sub> of 0.049 mm. In subjects with 1 risk factor, CCAIMT<sub>mean</sub> was 0.765 ± 0.121 (p < 0.0001 vs. subjects without risk factors). CCAIMT<sub>mean</sub> increased continuously with increasing number of risk factors, irrespective of age group. In multivariable analysis, age, sex and number of cardiovascular risk factors appeared independently associated with CCAIMT<sub>mean</sub>. <i>Conclusion:</i> CCAIMT<sub>mean</sub> may help to identify the population at intermediate cardiovascular risk. As an integrator of both conventional and genetic cardiovascular risk factors at the individual level, its additive value versus other risk scores must be evaluated, particularly in patients in their fourth and sixth decades.