Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Intima-Media Thickness Does Not Differ between Two Common Carotid Artery Segments in Children

Abstract

Carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) is a surrogate marker of early atherosclerotic changes in children. cIMT-studies are hard to compare, due to variations in ultrasound protocols, especially regarding the common carotid artery (CCA) segment measured in relation to the bulb. This study’s purpose was therefore to compare two distinct CCA segments in children, to see if cIMT values differ substantially according to the site of measurement. cIMT was assessed after power calculation in 30 children (15 girls) aged 8–17, using B-Mode ultrasound (5–13 MHz) at two CCA locations. The first measurement was performed over a distance of 1 cm immediately after the bulb (A), the second 1cm proximal the bulb (B) over the same distance of 1cm length. Means of end-diastolic far wall cIMT were compared between measurement A and B. cIMT in 30 participants was 0.51±0.06 mm for measurement A and 0.51±0.05 mm for measurement B. Results did not differ significantly (p = .947) over a distance of 2 cm after the bulb. According to our results, studies measuring CCA IMT within the first 2 cm, either close to the bulb or further proximal, can be compared. This will improve interpretation of data and application of reference values.

Citation: Weberruß H, Pirzer R, Dalla Pozza R, Netz H, Oberhoffer R (2016) Intima-Media Thickness Does Not Differ between Two Common Carotid Artery Segments in Children. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0149057. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149057

Editor: Anna Alisi, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, ITALY

Received: July 31, 2015; Accepted: January 25, 2016; Published: March 11, 2016

Copyright: © 2016 Weberruß et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Data are from the Sternstunden der Gesundheit study whose authors may be contacted at [email protected]. The minimal data set required to reproduce the results presented in this study are within the paper and its Supporting Information file.

Funding: The study was funded by Sternstunden e.V. (non-profit organization) and district office Berchtesgadener Land, Germany. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) is applied as prognostic subclinical marker of atherosclerosis in healthy children and adolescents [1–4] as well as in children in chronic conditions [5–9]. However, cIMT study results are hard to compare due to variations in ultrasound measurement protocols. cIMT measurements can be made at the common carotid artery (CCA), bifurcation (BIF) or internal carotid artery (ICA)–but even if the same arterial segment is referred to, these segments are not identical. Out of 26 studies there is none that applied a uniform scanning protocol (Table 1).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Summary of ultrasound B-mode studies measuring intima-media thickness in children and adolescents with different protocols.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149057.t001

cIMT was measured either 1-2cm proximal the bifurcation [1, 4, 5, 17], which is slightly different to others, who indicate the same distance (1–2 cm) but proximal to the bulb [6, 11, 12] and to those, measuring only 1 cm proximal to the bifurcation [8, 16, 20, 21] or 1 cm proximal to the bulb [14, 23, 24, 26]. In contrast, Meyer et al. [19] and Woo et al. [9] define their location as the distal 1 cm of the CCA, Sass et al. [2] measured 3 cm proximal the bifurcation. Lorenz et al. (2007) pointed out 6 different CCA segments where cIMT has been measured [27]. Furthermore, there is a significant difference between the left and right carotid artery [28] as well as between measurements made on the near or far wall [29, 30]. cIMT depends on the cardiac cycle with a variation of about 5% between systolic and diastolic phase [31] and differs substantially according to cIMT calculation with the maximum value obtained, mean of maximum or mean value [32]. Just recently, the Association for European Pediatric Cardiology has made recommendations on cIMT measurement in children [33]. So far, comparing different study results is quite impossible, due to lack in rigorous standardized protocols, methodological variation and inhomogeneous study populations [27, 32, 34, 35].

This study investigated if there is a difference in IMT measured at two CCA segments, first, over a distance of 1cm length immediately proximal to the bulb, and second, over a distance of 1cm length proximal to the first segment. The distance over 2cm was chosen according to Engelen et al. (2013), who noted the CCA segment of 0 to 2cm proximal the bulb as most common site of measurement, observed in a study cohort of 24 871 individuals, out of 24 study centers from 13 different countries [35].

To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing cIMT in two different CCA segments in children.

Patients and Methods

Study Design and Subjects

This study reexamined a subsample (n = 30) out of the total study population (n = 1017). Data analysis was part of the prevention project “Sternstunden der Gesundheit” that was conducted from October 2012 to July 2013 in the area of Berchtesgadener Land, Germany. The total study population of 1017 healthy children (534 boys/ 483 girls), aged 7–17, was prospectively studied to calculate reference values and to assess cardiovascular risk factors. The study protocol was approved by the ethics commission of the Technische Universität München (5490/12), written informed consent was obtained from parents of all children as well as from children aged ≥ 14 years.

Sample size calculation

Power calculation (G*Power 3.1.9 for Windows, University Düsseldorf, Germany) with an effect size d = 0.8 and test power of 0.95 revealed a subsample size of 28 subjects which were analyzed twice [36]. To compare a homogenous sample, 30 healthy children were randomly chosen—6 subjects (3 boys/ 3 girls) out of five age groups (8–10/ 10–12/ 12–14/ 14–16/ 16–18).

cIMT Measurement

cIMT was assessed with B-Mode ultrasound (ProSound Alpha 6, Hitachi Medical Systems GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany) using a high frequency linear array probe (5–13 MHz) by two investigators. The coefficient of variation (CV) between both examiners was 4.79%, assessed in 27 subjects out of the whole study population (n = 1017), who were examined by both investigators.

After 15 minutes rest patients were examined in supine position, the neck slightly extended and their head turned 45° opposite the site being scanned. cIMT was measured according to the Mannheim consensus [37] on CCA far wall. Of each subject, 4 video loops of at least 3 heart cycles were stored, 2 for the left and 2 for the right CCA. The cardiac cycle was simultaneously controlled with a 3 lead ECG.

cIMT Analysis

Out of every video-loop, the best end-diastolic picture was chosen and analyzed twice by the same tester with a semi-automated software (ProSound Alpha 6, Hitachi Medical Systems GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany) without manual correction. Measurement A refers to the distance over 1cm length immediately proximal to the bulb, measurement B over the same length of 1cm proximal to segment A (Fig 1). For each subject, 4 measurements (2 left and 2 right) were analyzed for segment A and segment B, respectively. cIMT of each measurement was calculated as mean value, the average mean value of analysis A and B, respectively, was calculated and further compared.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. B-Mode Ultrasound image of the common carotid artery.

Segment A defines the first measurement about a distance of 1cm immediately proximal to the bulb. Segment B defines the second measurement over the same length of 1cm proximal to segment A.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149057.g001

Statistical Analysis

Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Measurements were compared via intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the coefficient of variation (CV), and visualized with a Bland-Altman plot. The CV describes differences between measurement A and B as a percentage of the pooled mean value, calculated according to the following formula:

In the formula, s is calculated as and SD is the standard deviation of differences between measurement A and B [38]. As data was normally distributed, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was applied, differences between the two measurements were examined with a t-test for matched pairs. A p-value of < .05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

cIMT was measured in 30 participants (15 boys/ 15 girls). Subject’s mean age was 13±2.98 years. Anthropometric data and cIMT values are shown in Table 2. There were no significant differences between boys and girls in the subsample. Compared to the total study population (n = 1017), the entire subsample as well as boys and girls separately, did not differ significantly regarding BMI and BMI SDS as well as cIMT and cIMT SDS (data not shown). A significant difference in age was observed between the subsample and the total study population (13±3 vs 11.9±2.3, p = .013) and between boys of the subsample and boys of the total study population (13.1±3.1 vs. 11.5±2.1, p = .005).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Anthropometric data and cIMT values of study participants in mean±SD.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149057.t002

Mean cIMT for measurement A was 0.51±0.06mm and 0.51±0.05mm for measurement B, respectively. The average measure ICC between measurement A and B was 0.887 with a 95% confidence interval from .764 to .949 (p < .001), CV was 2.6%. The Bland-Altman analysis visualizes the level of agreement between analysis A and B (Fig 2). The x-axis displays the common mean value for measurement A and B in each subject, the y-axis the corresponding difference between measurement A and B. The upper and lower lines represent the 95% limits of agreement, which ranges from -0.069 mm to 0.067 mm.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Bland-Altman analysis of measurement A and B.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149057.g002

Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the two measurements was r = 0.795 (p < .001) for the entire sample and r = 0.782 (p = .001) for boys and r = 0.814 (p < .001) for girls.

There were no significant differences between cIMT measured at segment A and B, respectively (p = .947; 95% CI = ±0.01mm) in the t-test for matched pairs within the entire sample neither for boys and girls separately (p = .923; 95% CI = ±0.02mm for boys and p = .761; 95% CI = -0.014/+0.018 for girls, respectively).

Discussion

Measurement protocols of cIMT values differ very much among studies, which makes comparison of results quite impossible [34]. To enhance comparability of results, this study’s purpose was to analyze cIMT measured in two distinct CCA segments in children. The first segment was chosen over a distance of 1cm length immediately proximal to the bulb, and second, over the same distance of 1cm length proximal to the first segment. Our results revealed no statistical differences in mean cIMT between the two CCA segments, measured in 30 children on the left and right CCA far wall. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare cIMT in two different CCA segments in children.

Kornet et al. [40] compared two CCA points in an adult cohort, immediately after the bulb and 20–30 mm more proximal. Opposite to our results, they state a larger cIMT closer to the bulb than 20–30 mm more proximal and assume near-wall shear rate (WSR) as possible explanation. In sites of lower WSR, which is true for the area close to the bulb, cIMT is supposed to be larger than in sites of higher WSR.

In our study, cIMT was assessed with B-mode, whereas Kornet et al. [40] applied radio frequency signal analysis in M-mode. This technique only measures a single point of thickness that does not represent the arterial status adequately [41] and might account for controversial results. Progress in ultrasound technology with a far more accurate assessment nowadays could be another reason as well as participants’ age. We assessed cIMT in children and adolescents aged 8–17, whereas participants in the study by Kornet et al. [40] were adults (18–67 years). According to De Groot et al. [42], there is a smaller population variability in thinner arterial walls, which is the case in children. Furthermore, atherosclerotic changes develop slowly over decades, thus structural differences in children’s cIMT might not be as developed as in adults [43].

With the exception of the study by Kornet et al. [40], studies comparing different IMTs did not focus on different segments of the same arterial part but on (a) differences between CCA, ICA and the bulb region [43, 44] or (b) on differences between CA and the femoral artery [2, 45] or abdominal aorta [10] and their association to cardiac risk factors. Meyer et al. (2006) measured cIMT in the CCA and bifurcation area (BIF) in normal weight children, where mean cIMT varied between CCA and BIF from 0.39±0.05mm (CCA) to 0.43±0.07mm (BIF), respectively, but did not report if this difference was significant.

Conclusion

Our results ensure comparability of studies in children and adolescents with cIMT measurements at different CCA locations over a distance of 0–2 cm proximal to the bulb. CCA cIMT is frequently assessed within this distance, as observed in a study cohort of more than 20 000 individuals [35]. The Association for European Paediatric Cardiology tried to unify cIMT measurements in children [33]. In these guidelines, they recommend to measure cIMT at segment A, which is sometimes difficult to detect in children, as the bulb is located beyond the jawbone. In these cases, it is of special importance to know, that segment A and B (S1 Table) do not differ significantly in children and both measurements represent a reliable cIMT.

Limitations of the Study

As a limitation of our study we did not measure the pubertal status of our participants. Only one study could be found, addressing pubertal status and cIMT, but in children with type 1 diabetes. In this work, cIMT did not increase during puberty [46]. Results in the literature are inconsistent about a significant influence of age on cIMT [1–4, 11]. Within our sample, we observed no significant age influence on cIMT [26].

Supporting Information

S1 Table.

cIMT [mm] at Segment A and B. Segment A refers to the measurement immediately proximal to the bulb and Segment B to 1cm proximal to Segment A.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149057.s001

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The study was funded by Sternstunden e.V. (non-profit organization) and district office Berchtesgadener Land, Germany.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: HW. Performed the experiments: HW RP. Analyzed the data: HW. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: RDP HN RO. Wrote the paper: HW RP RDP HN RO.

References

  1. 1. Jourdan C, Wuhl E, Litwin M, Fahr K, Trelewicz J, Jobs K, et al. Normative values for intima-media thickness and distensibility of large arteries in healthy adolescents. Journal of hypertension. 2005;23(9):1707–15. pmid:16093916.
  2. 2. Sass C, Herbeth B, Chapet O, Siest G, Visvikis S, Zannad F. Intima-media thickness and diameter of carotid and femoral arteries in children, adolescents and adults from the Stanislas cohort: effect of age, sex, anthropometry and blood pressure. Journal of hypertension. 1998;16(11):1593–602. pmid:9856359.
  3. 3. Bohm B, Hartmann K, Buck M, Oberhoffer R. Sex differences of carotid intima-media thickness in healthy children and adolescents. Atherosclerosis. 2009;206(2):458–63. pmid:19389672.
  4. 4. Doyon A, Kracht D, Bayazit AK, Deveci M, Duzova A, Krmar RT, et al. Carotid artery intima-media thickness and distensibility in children and adolescents: reference values and role of body dimensions. Hypertension. 2013;62(3):550–6. pmid:23817494.
  5. 5. Aggoun Y, Bonnet D, Sidi D, Girardet JP, Brucker E, Polak M, et al. Arterial Mechanical Changes in Children With Familial Hypercholesterolemia. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2000;20(9):2070–5. pmid:10978251
  6. 6. Jarvisalo MJ, Jartti L, Nanto-Salonen K, Irjala K, Ronnemaa T, Hartiala JJ, et al. Increased aortic intima-media thickness: a marker of preclinical atherosclerosis in high-risk children. Circulation. 2001;104(24):2943–7. pmid:11739310.
  7. 7. Sorof JM, Alexandrov AV, Cardwell G, Portman RJ. Carotid Artery Intimal-Medial Thickness and Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Children With Elevated Blood Pressure. Pediatrics. 2003;111(1):61–6. pmid:12509555
  8. 8. Iannuzzi A, Licenziati MR, Acampora C, Renis M, Agrusta M, Romano L, et al. Carotid artery stiffness in obese children with the metabolic syndrome. The American journal of cardiology. 2006;97(4):528–31. pmid:16461050.
  9. 9. Woo KS, Chook P, Yu CW, Sung RY, Qiao M, Leung SS, et al. Overweight in children is associated with arterial endothelial dysfunction and intima-media thickening. International journal of obesity and related metabolic disorders: journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity. 2004;28(7):852–7. pmid:15170465.
  10. 10. Dawson JD, Sonka M, Blecha MB, Lin W, Davis PH. Risk factors associated with aortic and carotid intima-media thickness in adolescents and young adults: the Muscatine Offspring Study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2009;53(24):2273–9. pmid:19520251; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2747309.
  11. 11. Ishizu T, Ishimitsu T, Yanagi H, Seo Y, Obara K, Moriyama N, et al. Effect of age on carotid arterial intima-media thickness in childhood. Heart and vessels. 2004;19(4):189–95. pmid:15278393.
  12. 12. Jarvisalo MJ, Raitakari M, Toikka JO, Putto-Laurila A, Rontu R, Laine S, et al. Endothelial dysfunction and increased arterial intima-media thickness in children with type 1 diabetes. Circulation. 2004;109(14):1750–5. pmid:15023875.
  13. 13. Krantz JS, Mack WJ, Hodis HN, Liu CR, Liu CH, Kaufman FR. Early onset of subclinical atherosclerosis in young persons with type 1 diabetes. The Journal of pediatrics. 2004;145(4):452–7. pmid:15480366.
  14. 14. Krebs A, Schmidt-Trucksass A, Alt J, Doerfer J, Krebs K, Winkler K, et al. Synergistic effects of elevated systolic blood pressure and hypercholesterolemia on carotid intima-media thickness in children and adolescents. Pediatric cardiology. 2009;30(8):1131–6. pmid:19768489.
  15. 15. Lande MB, Carson NL, Roy J, Meagher CC. Effects of childhood primary hypertension on carotid intima media thickness: a matched controlled study. Hypertension. 2006;48(1):40–4. pmid:16735644.
  16. 16. Lavrencic A, Kosmina B, Keber I, Videcnik V, Keber D. Carotid intima-media thickness in young patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia. Heart. 1996;76(4):321–5. pmid:8983678; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC484543.
  17. 17. Litwin M, Trelewicz J, Wawer Z, Antoniewicz J, Wierzbicka A, Rajszys P, et al. Intima-media thickness and arterial elasticity in hypertensive children: controlled study. Pediatric nephrology. 2004;19(7):767–74. pmid:15138871.
  18. 18. Menees S, Zhang D, Le J, Chen J, Raghuveer G. Variations in carotid artery intima-media thickness during the cardiac cycle in children. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography: official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography. 2010;23(1):58–63. pmid:19962856.
  19. 19. Meyer AA, Kundt G, Steiner M, Schuff-Werner P, Kienast W. Impaired flow-mediated vasodilation, carotid artery intima-media thickening, and elevated endothelial plasma markers in obese children: the impact of cardiovascular risk factors. Pediatrics. 2006;117(5):1560–7. pmid:16651309.
  20. 20. Mittelman SD, Gilsanz P, Mo AO, Wood J, Dorey F, Gilsanz V. Adiposity predicts carotid intima-media thickness in healthy children and adolescents. The Journal of pediatrics. 2010;156(4):592–7 e2. pmid:20004913.
  21. 21. Pauciullo P, Iannuzzi A, Sartorio R, Irace C, Covetti G, Di Costanzo A, et al. Increased intima-media thickness of the common carotid artery in hypercholesterolemic children. Arteriosclerosis and thrombosis: a journal of vascular biology / American Heart Association. 1994;14(7):1075–9. pmid:8018662.
  22. 22. Reinehr T, Kiess W, de Sousa G, Stoffel-Wagner B, Wunsch R. Intima media thickness in childhood obesity: relations to inflammatory marker, glucose metabolism, and blood pressure. Metabolism: clinical and experimental. 2006;55(1):113–8. pmid:16324929.
  23. 23. Singh TP, Groehn H, Kazmers A. Vascular function and carotid intimal-medial thickness in children with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2003;41(4):661–5. pmid:12598080
  24. 24. Tonstad S, Joakimsen O, Stensland-Bugge E, Leren TP, Ose L, Russell D, et al. Risk factors related to carotid intima-media thickness and plaque in children with familial hypercholesterolemia and control subjects. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1996;16(8):984–91. pmid:8696963.
  25. 25. Virkola K, Pesonen E, Akerblom HK, Siimes MA. Cholesterol and carotid artery wall in children and adolescents with familial hypercholesterolaemia: a controlled study by ultrasound. Acta paediatrica. 1997;86(11):1203–7. pmid:9401514.
  26. 26. Weberruss H, Pirzer R, Bohm B, Elmenhorst J, Pozza RD, Netz H, et al. Increased intima-media thickness is not associated with stiffer arteries in children. Atherosclerosis. 2015;242(1):48–55. pmid:26177274.
  27. 27. Lorenz MW, Markus HS, Bots ML, Rosvall M, Sitzer M. Prediction of clinical cardiovascular events with carotid intima-media thickness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation. 2007;115(4):459–67. pmid:17242284.
  28. 28. Luo X, Yang Y, Cao T, Li Z. Differences in left and right carotid intima-media thickness and the associated risk factors. Clinical radiology. 2011;66(5):393–8. pmid:21324442.
  29. 29. Pignoli P, Tremoli E, Poli A, Oreste P, Paoletti R. Intimal plus medial thickness of the arterial wall: a direct measurement with ultrasound imaging. Circulation. 1986;74(6):1399–406. pmid:3536154.
  30. 30. Wong M, Edelstein J, Wollman J, Bond MG. Ultrasonic-pathological comparison of the human arterial wall. Verification of intima-media thickness. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 1993;13(4):482–6.
  31. 31. Urbina EM, Williams RV, Alpert BS, Collins RT, Daniels SR, Hayman L, et al. Noninvasive assessment of subclinical atherosclerosis in children and adolescents: recommendations for standard assessment for clinical research: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension. 2009;54(5):919–50. pmid:19729599.
  32. 32. Litwin M, Niemirska A. Intima-media thickness measurements in children with cardiovascular risk factors. Pediatric nephrology. 2009;24(4):707–19. pmid:18784945.
  33. 33. Dalla Pozza R, Ehringer-Schetitska D, Fritsch P, Jokinen E, Petropoulos A, Oberhoffer R, et al. Intima media thickness measurement in children: A statement from the Association for European Paediatric Cardiology (AEPC) Working Group on Cardiovascular Prevention endorsed by the Association for European Paediatric Cardiology. Atherosclerosis. 2015;238(2):380–7. pmid:25555270.
  34. 34. Peters SA, Grobbee DE, Bots ML. Carotid intima-media thickness: a suitable alternative for cardiovascular risk as outcome? European journal of cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation: official journal of the European Society of Cardiology, Working Groups on Epidemiology & Prevention and Cardiac Rehabilitation and Exercise Physiology. 2011;18(2):167–74. pmid:21568017.
  35. 35. Engelen L, Ferreira I, Stehouwer CD, Boutouyrie P, Laurent S, Reference Values for Arterial Measurements C. Reference intervals for common carotid intima-media thickness measured with echotracking: relation with risk factors. European heart journal. 2013;34(30):2368–80. pmid:23186808.
  36. 36. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior research methods. 2007;39(2):175–91. pmid:17695343.
  37. 37. Touboul PJ, Hennerici MG, Meairs S, Adams H, Amarenco P, Bornstein N, et al. Mannheim carotid intima-media thickness consensus (2004–2006). An update on behalf of the Advisory Board of the 3rd and 4th Watching the Risk Symposium, 13th and 15th European Stroke Conferences, Mannheim, Germany, 2004, and Brussels, Belgium, 2006. Cerebrovascular diseases. 2007;23(1):75–80. https://doi.org/10.1159/000097034 pmid:17108679.
    • 38. Schmidt C, Wendelhag I. How can the variability in ultrasound measurement of intima-media thickness be reduced? Studies of interobserver variability in carotid and femoral arteries. Clinical physiology. 1999;19(1):45–55. pmid:10068866.
    • 39. Kromeyer K, Wabitsch M, Kunze D, Geller F. Perzentile für den Body-Mass-Index für das Kindes- und Jugendalter unter Heranziehung verschiedener deutscher Stichproben. Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde. 2001;149:807–18.
    • 40. Kornet L, Lambregts J, Hoeks AP, Reneman RS. Differences in near-wall shear rate in the carotid artery within subjects are associated with different intima-media thicknesses. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1998;18(12):1877–84. pmid:9848879.
    • 41. Stein JH, Korcarz CE, Hurst RT, Lonn E, Kendall CB, Mohler ER, et al. Use of carotid ultrasound to identify subclinical vascular disease and evaluate cardiovascular disease risk: a consensus statement from the American Society of Echocardiography Carotid Intima-Media Thickness Task Force. Endorsed by the Society for Vascular Medicine. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography: official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography. 2008;21(2):93–111; quiz 89–90. pmid:18261694.
    • 42. de Groot E, van Leuven SI, Duivenvoorden R, Meuwese MC, Akdim F, Bots ML, et al. Measurement of carotid intima-media thickness to assess progression and regression of atherosclerosis. Nature clinical practice Cardiovascular medicine. 2008;5(5):280–8. pmid:18332891.
    • 43. Urbina EM, Srinivasan SR, Tang R, Bond MG, Kieltyka L, Berenson GS, et al. Impact of multiple coronary risk factors on the intima-media thickness of different segments of carotid artery in healthy young adults (The Bogalusa Heart Study). The American journal of cardiology. 2002;90(9):953–8. pmid:12398961.
    • 44. Nambi V, Chambless L, He M, Folsom AR, Mosley T, Boerwinkle E, et al. Common carotid artery intima-media thickness is as good as carotid intima-media thickness of all carotid artery segments in improving prediction of coronary heart disease risk in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. European heart journal. 2012;33(2):183–90. pmid:21666250; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3258447.
    • 45. Gariepy J, Salomon J, Denarie N, Laskri F, Megnien JL, Levenson J, et al. Sex and topographic differences in associations between large-artery wall thickness and coronary risk profile in a French working cohort: the AXA Study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1998;18(4):584–90. pmid:9555864.
    • 46. Pena AS, Maftei O, Harrington J, Anderson J, Hirte C, Gent R, et al. Lack of evidence for progression of atherosclerosis during puberty in type 1 diabetes. Pediatric diabetes. 2015. pmid:25683127.