The objectives of this study are to (1) examine the “10-year cardiovascular risk” in the common carotid artery (CCA) versus carotid bulb using an integrated calculator called “AtheroEdge Composite Risk Score 2.0” (AECRS2.0) and (2) evaluate the performance of AECRS2.0 against “conventional cardiovascular risk calculators.” These objectives are met by measuring (1) image-based phenotypes and AECRS2.0 score computation and (2) performance evaluation of AECRS2.0 against 12 conventional cardiovascular risk calculators. The Asian–Indian cohort (n = 379) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or hypertension were retrospectively analyzed by acquiring the 1516 carotid ultrasound scans (mean age: 55 ± 10.1 years, 67% males, ∼92% with T2DM, ∼83% with CKD [stage 1-5], and 87.5% with hypertension [stage 1-2]). The carotid bulb showed a higher 10-year cardiovascular risk compared to the CCA by 18% (P < .0001). Patients with T2DM and/or CKD also followed a similar trend. The carotid bulb demonstrated a superior risk assessment compared to CCA in patients with T2DM and/or CKD by showing: (1) ∼13% better than CCA (0.93 vs 0.82, P = .0001) and (2) ∼29% better compared with 12 types of risk conventional calculators (0.93 vs 0.72, P = .06).
DweckMRPuntmannVOVeseyATFayadZANagelE. MR imaging of coronary arteries and plaques. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9:306–16.
3.
PedroLMSanchesJMSeabraJSuriJSFernandes e FernandesJ. Asymptomatic carotid disease—a new tool for assessing neurological risk. Echocardiography. 2014;31:353–61.
4.
LaineASanchesJMSuriJS. Ultrasound Imaging: Advances and Applications. Springer; 2012.
5.
D’agostinoRBVasanRSPencinaMJ, et al.General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham heart study. Circulation. 2008;117:743–53.
6.
GoffDCLloyd-JonesDMBennettG, et al.2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2935–59.
7.
Hippisley-CoxJCouplandCBrindleP. Development and validation of QRISK3 risk prediction algorithms to estimate future risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2017;357:1–12.
8.
RidkerPMBuringJERifaiNCookNR. Development and validation of improved algorithms for the assessment of global cardiovascular risk in women: the Reynolds risk score. JAMA. 2007;297:611–9.
9.
StevensRJKothariVAdlerAIStrattonIMHolmanRR. The UKPDS risk engine: a model for the risk of coronary heart disease in Type II diabetes (UKPDS 56). Clin Sci. 2001;101:671–9.
10.
KothariVStevensRJAdlerAI, et al.UKPDS 60: risk of stroke in type 2 diabetes estimated by the UK prospective diabetes study risk engine. Stroke. 2002;33:1776–81.
11.
NIPPON DATA80 Research Group. Risk assessment chart for death from cardiovascular disease based on a 19-year follow-up study of a Japanese representative population. Circ J. 2006;70:1249–55.
12.
ConroyRMPyöräläKFitzgeraldA, et al.Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project. Eur Heart J. 2003;24:987–1003.
13.
World Health Organization. Prevention of cardiovascular disease: guideline for assessment and management of cardiovascular risk. 2007. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43685. Accessed December 6, 2005.
14.
MendisSLindholmLHManciaG, et al.World Health Organization (WHO) and International Society of Hypertension (ISH) risk prediction charts: assessment of cardiovascular risk for prevention and control of cardiovascular disease in low and middle-income countries. J Hypertens. 2007;25:1578–82.
15.
AssmannGCullenPSchulteH. Simple scoring scheme for calculating the risk of acute coronary events based on the 10-year follow-up of the prospective cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study. Circulation. 2002;105:310–5.
16.
D’AgostinoRBWolfPABelangerAJKannelWB. Stroke risk profile: adjustment for antihypertensive medication. The Framingham study. Stroke. 1994;25:40–3.
17.
NobelLMayoNEHanleyJNadeauLDaskalopoulouSS. MyRisk_stroke calculator: a personalized stroke risk assessment tool for the general population. J Clin Neurol. 2014;10:1–9.
18.
KuoFGardenerHDongC, et al.Traditional cardiovascular risk factors explain the minority of the variability in carotid plaque. Stroke. 2012;43:1755–60.
19.
ViswanathanVJamthikarADGuptaD, et al.Integration of eGFR biomarker in image-based CV/Stroke risk calculator: a south Asian-Indian diabetes cohort with moderate chronic kidney disease [published online ahead of print March 26, 2020]. Int Angiol. https://doi.org/10.23736/s0392-9590.20.04338-2.
20.
KhannaNNJamthikarADGuptaD, et al.Effect of carotid image-based phenotypes on cardiovascular risk calculator: AECRS1. 0. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2019;57:1553–66.
21.
KhannaNNJamthikarADGuptaD, et al.Performance evaluation of 10-year ultrasound image-based stroke/cardiovascular (CV) risk calculator by comparing against ten conventional CV risk calculators: a diabetic study. Comput Biol Med. 2019;105:125–43.
22.
KhannaNNJamthikarADArakiT, et al.Nonlinear model for the carotid artery disease 10-year risk prediction by fusing conventional cardiovascular factors to carotid ultrasound image phenotypes: a Japanese diabetes cohort study. Echocardiography. 2019;36:345–61.
23.
JamthikarAGuptaDKhannaNN, et al.A low-cost machine learning-based cardiovascular/stroke risk assessment system: integration of conventional factors with image phenotypes. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2019;9:420.
24.
Cuadrado-GodiaEJamthikarADGuptaD, et al.Ranking of stroke and cardiovascular risk factors for an optimal risk calculator design: logistic regression approach. Comput Biol Med. 2019;108:182–95.
25.
JamthikarAGuptaDKhannaNN, et al.A special report on changing trends in preventive stroke/cardiovascular risk assessment via B-mode ultrasonography. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2019;21:25.
26.
ViswanathanVJamthikarAGuptaD, et al.Low-cost preventive screening using carotid ultrasound in patients with diabetes. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2020;25:1132.
27.
SabaLJamthikarAGuptaD, et al.Global perspective on carotid intima-media thickness and plaque: should the current measurement guidelines be revisited?Int Angiol. 2019;38:451–65.
28.
LindLGiganteBBorneY, et al.The plasma protein profile and cardiovascular risk differ between intima-media thickness of the common carotid artery and the bulb: a meta-analysis and a longitudinal evaluation. Atherosclerosis. 2020;295:25–30.
29.
GreggSLiTYHétuMFPangSCEwartPJohriAM. Relationship between carotid artery atherosclerosis and bulb geometry. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;34:1081–90.
30.
HamreforsVHedbladBEngstromGAlmgrenPSjogrenMMelanderO. A myocardial infarction genetic risk score is associated with markers of carotid atherosclerosis. J Intern Med. 2012;271:271–81.
31.
Den HoedMStrawbridgeRJAlmgrenP, et al.GWAS-identified loci for coronary heart disease are associated with intima-media thickness and plaque presence at the carotid artery bulb. Atherosclerosis. 2015;239:304–10.
32.
KobayashiYIshiguroHFujikawaT, et al.Atherosclerosis of the carotid bulb is associated with the severity of orthostatic hypotension in non-diabetic adult patients: a cross-sectional study. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2019;41:194–201.
33.
PolakJFPersonSDWeiGS, et al.Segment-specific associations of carotid intima-media thickness with cardiovascular risk factors: the coronary artery risk development in young adults (CARDIA) study. Stroke. 2010;41:9–15.
34.
DietrichMJacquesPFPolakJF, et al.Segment-specific association between plasma homocysteine level and carotid artery intima-media thickness in the Framingham Offspring Study. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2011;20:155–61.
35.
InabaYChenJABergmannSR. Carotid plaque, compared with carotid intima-media thickness, more accurately predicts coronary artery disease events: a meta-analysis. Atherosclerosis. 2012;220:128–33.
36.
HultheJWikstrandJEmanuelssonHWiklundOde FeyterPJWendelhagI. Atherosclerotic changes in the carotid artery bulb as measured by B-mode ultrasound are associated with the extent of coronary atherosclerosis. Stroke. 1997;28:1189–94.
37.
IkedaNDeyNSharmaA, et al.Automated segmental-IMT measurement in thin/thick plaque with bulb presence in carotid ultrasound from multiple scanners: stroke risk assessment. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2017;141:73–81.
38.
IkedaNArakiTDeyN, et al.Automated and accurate carotid bulb detection, its verification and validation in low quality frozen frames and motion video. Int Angiol. 2014;33:573–89.
39.
JohnsenSHMathiesenEBJoakimsenO, et al.Carotid atherosclerosis is a stronger predictor of myocardial infarction in women than in men: a 6-year follow-up study of 6226 persons: the tromsø study. Stroke. 2007;38:2873–80.
40.
EbrahimSPapacostaOWhincupP, et al.Carotid plaque, intima media thickness, cardiovascular risk factors, and prevalent cardiovascular disease in men and women: the British regional heart study. Stroke. 1999;30:841–50.
41.
IkedaNGuptaADeyN, et al.Improved correlation between carotid and coronary atherosclerosis SYNTAX score using automated ultrasound carotid bulb plaque IMT measurement. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015;41:1247–62.
42.
JamthikarAGuptaDSabaL, et al.Cardiovascular/stroke risk predictive calculators: a comparison between statistical and machine learning models. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2020;9:420.
43.
PuvvulaAJamthikarADGuptaD, et al.Morphological carotid plaque area is associated with glomerular filtration rate: a study of south Asian Indian patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Angiology. 2020:3319720910660.
44.
SpenceJDEliasziwMDiCiccoMHackamDGGalilRLohmannT. Carotid plaque area: a tool for targeting and evaluating vascular preventive therapy. Stroke. 2002;33:2916–22.
45.
SpenceJDSoloK. Resistant atherosclerosis: the need for monitoring of plaque burden. Stroke. 2017;48:1624–9.
46.
SteinJHKorcarzCEHurstRT, 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. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2008;21:93–111.
47.
MolinariFPattichisCSZengG, et al.Completely automated multiresolution edge snapper—a new technique for an accurate carotid ultrasound IMT measurement: clinical validation and benchmarking on a multi-institutional database. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2012;21:1211–22.
48.
MolinariFZengGSuriJS. Intima-media thickness: setting a standard for a completely automated method of ultrasound measurement. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2010;57:1112–24.
49.
MolinariFMeiburgerKMZengG, et al.Automated carotid IMT measurement and its validation in low contrast ultrasound database of 885 patient Indian population epidemiological study: results of AtheroEdge™ Software. Int Angiol. 2012;31:42–53.
50.
SabaLMallariniGSanfilippoRZengGMontisciRSuriJ. Intima Media Thickness Variability (IMTV) and its association with cerebrovascular events: a novel marker of carotid therosclerosis?Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2012;2:10.
51.
SabaLMolinariFMeiburgerK, et al.What is the correct distance measurement metric when measuring carotid ultrasound intima-media thickness automatically?Int Angiol. 2012;31:483–9.
52.
MolinariFMeiburgerKMSabaL, et al.Automated carotid IMT measurement and its validation in low contrast ultrasound database of 885 patient Indian Population Epidemiological Study: results of Athero Edge® software. In: Luís MendesPLucaSJasjitSS, ed. Multi-Modality Atherosclerosis Imaging and Diagnosis. Springer; 2014:209–19.
53.
MolinariFMeiburgerKMSabaL, et al.Fully automated dual-snake formulation for carotid intima-media thickness measurement: a new approach. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31:1123–36.
54.
Cuadrado-GodiaEManiruzzamanMArakiT, et al.Morphologic TPA (mTPA) and composite risk score for moderate carotid atherosclerotic plaque is strongly associated with HbA1c in diabetes cohort. Comput Biol Med. 2018;101:128–45.
55.
Cuadrado-GodiaESrivastavaSKSabaL, et al.Geometric total plaque area is an equally powerful phenotype compared with carotid intima-media thickness for stroke risk assessment: a deep learning approach. J Vasc Ultrasound. 2018;42:162–88.
56.
Mathiesen EllisivBJohnsen SteinHWilsgaardTBønaa KaareHLøchenM-LNjølstadI. Carotid plaque area and intima-media thickness in prediction of first-ever ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2011;42:972–8.
57.
AlsulaimaniSGardenerHElkindMSCheungKSaccoRLRundekT. Elevated homocysteine and carotid plaque area and densitometry in the Northern Manhattan Study. Stroke. 2013;44:457–61.
58.
SabaLBanchhorSKSuriHS, et al.Accurate cloud-based smart IMT measurement, its validation and stroke risk stratification in carotid ultrasound: a web-based point-of-care tool for multicenter clinical trial. Comput Biol Med. 2016;75:217–34.
59.
KumarPKArakiTRajanJ, et al.Accurate lumen diameter measurement in curved vessels in carotid ultrasound: an iterative scale-space and spatial transformation approach. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2017;55:1415–34.
60.
BanchhorSKArakiTLondheND, et al.Five multiresolution-based calcium volume measurement techniques from coronary IVUS videos: a comparative approach. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2016;134:237–58.
61.
SabaLMontisciRMolinariF, et al.Comparison between manual and automated analysis for the quantification of carotid wall by using sonography. A validation study with CT. Eur J Radiol .
2012;81:911–8.
62.
SabaLBanchhorSKArakiT, et al.Intra-and inter-operator reproducibility analysis of automated cloud-based carotid intima media thickness ultrasound measurement. J Clin Diagn Res. 2018;12:KC01–KC11.
63.
SabaLBanchhorSKArakiT, et al.Intra- and inter-operator reproducibility of automated cloud-based carotid lumen diameter ultrasound measurement. Indian Heart J. 2018:70:649–6.
64.
SuriJTurkMJamthikarA, et al.Performance evaluation of AECRS1. 0 using stroke risk calculators. Paper presented at. Eur J Neurol. 2019;26:280–1.
65.
SuriJSJamthikarAGuptaD, et al.Carotid ultrasound-based echolucency phenotype for risk stratification of diabetes patients-2019 scientific program. J Ultrasound Med. 2019;38:S1–S214.
66.
SchadeDSMurphySExilVEatonRP. A pediatric opportunity in adolescents to prevent adult heart attacks. World J Cardiovasc Dis. 2018;8:85–101.
67.
BartlettEWaltersTSymonsSFoxA. Quantification of carotid stenosis on CT angiography. Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27:13–9.
68.
BartlettESWaltersTDSymonsSPFoxAJ. Carotid stenosis index revisited with direct CT angiography measurement of carotid arteries to quantify carotid stenosis. Stroke. 2007;38:286–91.
69.
HendersonRDEliasziwMFoxAJRothwellPMBarnettHJ. Angiographically defined collateral circulation and risk of stroke in patients with severe carotid artery stenosis. North American symptomatic carotid endarterectomy trial (NASCET) group. Stroke. 2000;31:128–32.
70.
KumarPKArakiTRajanJLairdJRNicolaidesASuriJS. State-of-the-art review on automated lumen and adventitial border delineation and its measurements in carotid ultrasound. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2018;163:155–68.
71.
SabaLBanchhorSKLondheND, et al.Web-based accurate measurements of carotid lumen diameter and stenosis severity: an ultrasound-based clinical tool for stroke risk assessment during multicenter clinical trials. Comput Biol Med. 2017;91:306–17.
72.
ArakiTKumarPKSuriHS, et al.Two automated techniques for carotid lumen diameter measurement: regional versus boundary approaches. J Med Syst. 2016;40:182.
73.
RevkinJHShearCLPouleurHGRyderSWOrloffDG. Biomarkers in the prevention and treatment of atherosclerosis: need, validation, and future. Pharmacol Rev. 2007;59:40–53.
74.
BotsMLEvansGWTegelerCHMeijerR. Carotid intima-media thickness measurements: relations with atherosclerosis, risk of cardiovascular disease and application in randomized controlled trials. Chin Med J. 2016;129:215.
75.
ThompsonJBBlahaMResarJRBlumenthalRSDesaiMY. Strategies to reverse atherosclerosis: an imaging perspective. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2008;10:283–93.
76.
LüscherTF. Predictors as well as surrogate and hard endpoints in cardiovascular disease. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:2197–9.
77.
BoisselJ-PColletJ-PMoleurPHaughM. Surrogate endpoints: a basis for a rational approach. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1992;43:235–44.
GoodeKMJohnJRigbyAS, et al.Elevated glycated haemoglobin is a strong predictor of mortality in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction who are not receiving treatment for diabetes mellitus. Heart. 2009;95:917–23.
80.
PaiJKCahillLEHuFBRexrodeKMMansonJERimmEB. Hemoglobin A<sub>1c</sub> is associated with increased risk of incident coronary heart disease among apparently healthy, nondiabetic men and women. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013;2:e000077.
81.
SarwarNGaoPSeshasaiSR, et al.Diabetes mellitus, fasting blood glucose concentration, and risk of vascular disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of 102 prospective studies. Lancet. 2010;375:2215–22.
82.
LuoYWangXMatsushitaK, et al.Associations between estimated glomerular filtration rate and stroke outcomes in diabetic versus nondiabetic patients. Stroke. 2014;45:2887–93.
83.
ParkHWKimWHKimKH, et al.Carotid plaque is associated with increased cardiac mortality in patients with coronary artery disease. Int J Cardiol. 2013;166:658–63.
84.
PetersenCPeçanhaPBVenneriLPasanisiEPrataliLPicanoE. The impact of carotid plaque presence and morphology on mortality outcome in cardiological patients. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2006;4:16.
85.
GoreMOMcGuireDK. Cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus: regulating glucose and regulating drugs. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2009;11:258–63.
86.
TurnerRCMillnsHNeilHA, et al.Risk factors for coronary artery disease in non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus: United Kingdom prospective diabetes study (UKPDS: 23). BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1998;316:823–8.
87.
StandlEBalletshoferBDahlB, et al.Predictors of 10-year macrovascular and overall mortality in patients with NIDDM: the Munich general practitioner project. Diabetologia. 1996;39:1540–5.
88.
GoASChertowGMFanDMcCullochCEHsuCY. Chronic kidney disease and the risks of death, cardiovascular events, and hospitalization. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1296–305.
89.
LeeMSaverJLChangKHLiaoHWChangSCOvbiageleB. Low glomerular filtration rate and risk of stroke: meta-analysis. BMJ. 2010;341:c4249.
90.
EknoyanGLameireNEckardtK, et al.KDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2013;3:5–14.
91.
CollinsAJLiSGilbertsonDTLiuJChenSCHerzogCA. Chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease in the Medicare population. Kidney Int Suppl. 2003: S24–31.
92.
LeesJSWelshCECelis-MoralesCA, et al.Glomerular filtration rate by differing measures, albuminuria and prediction of cardiovascular disease, mortality and end-stage kidney disease. Nat Med. 2019;25:1753–60.
93.
ZhouHWangXZhuJ, et al.Relation of carotid artery plaque to coronary heart disease and stroke in Chinese patients: does hyperglycemia status matter?Exp Clin Endocri Diab. 2018;126:134–40.
94.
ChienK-LSuT-CJengJ-S, et al.Carotid artery intima-media thickness, carotid plaque and coronary heart disease and stroke in Chinese. PloS One. 2008;3:e3435.
95.
SpenceJD. Ultrasound measurement of carotid plaque as a surrogate outcome for coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 2002;89:10–5.
96.
BelibouCAncuţaCAncuţaEFiloşCChirieacR. Carotid intima-media thickness and plaque as surrogate biomarkers of atherosclerosis among consecutive women with systemic lupus erythematosus. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2012;53:29–34.
97.
GudmundssonEFBjornsdottirGSigurdssonS, et al.Carotid plaque is a strong surrogate marker for CAC and subclinical CHD in the general population. Atherosclerosis Suppl. 2018;32:14.
98.
AmatoMMontorsiPRavaniA, et al.Carotid intima-media thickness by B-mode ultrasound as surrogate of coronary atherosclerosis: correlation with quantitative coronary angiography and coronary intravascular ultrasound findings. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:2094–101.
99.
OzenGSunbulMAtagunduzPDireskeneliHTigenKInancN. The 2013 ACC/AHA 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk index is better than SCORE and QRisk II in rheumatoid arthritis: is it enough?Rheumatology. 2016;55:513–22.
100.
GargNMuduliSKKapoorA, et al.Comparison of different cardiovascular risk score calculators for cardiovascular risk prediction and guideline recommended statin uses. Indian Heart J. 2017;69:458–63.
101.
FindlaySGKasliwalRRBansalMTariqueAZamanA. A comparison of cardiovascular risk scores in native and migrant South Asian populations. SSM Popul Health. 2020;11:100594.
102.
RefsumHUelandPMNygårdOVollsetSE. Homocysteine and cardiovascular disease. Annu Rev Med. 1998;49:31–62.
103.
LagrandWKVisserCAHermensWT, et al.C-Reactive protein as a cardiovascular risk factor. Circulation. 1999;100:96–102.
104.
LinJSEvansCVJohnsonERedmondNCoppolaELSmithN. Nontraditional risk factors in cardiovascular disease risk assessment: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;320:281–97.
105.
BiswasMKuppiliVArakiT, et al.Deep learning strategy for accurate carotid intima-media thickness measurement: an ultrasound study on Japanese diabetic cohort. Comput Biol Med. 2018;98:100–17.
106.
AcharyaURMookiahMRKSreeSV, et al.Atherosclerotic plaque tissue characterization in 2D ultrasound longitudinal carotid scans for automated classification: a paradigm for stroke risk assessment. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2013;51:513–23.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
