Francisdaugaard8696

Vulnerable carotid atherosclerotic plaques are characterised by several risk factors, such as inflammation, neovascularization and intraplaque haemorrhage (IPH). Vulnerable plaques can lead to ischemic events such as stroke. Many studies reported a relationship between IPH, plaque rupture, and ischemic stroke. Histology is the gold standard to evaluate IPH, but it required carotid endarterectomy (CEA) surgery to collect the tissue sample. In this context, several imaging methods can be used as a non-invasive way to evaluate plaque vulnerability and detect IPH. Most imaging studies showed that IPH is associated with plaque vulnerability and stroke, with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) being the most sensitive and specific to detect IPH as a predictor of ischemic events. These conclusions are however still debated because of the limited number of patients included in these studies; further studies are required to better assess risks associated with different IPH stages. Moreover, IPH is implicated in plaque vulnerability with other risk factors which need to be considered to predict ischemic risk. In addition, MRI sequences standardization is required to compare results from different studies and agree on biomarkers that need to be considered to predict plaque rupture. In these circumstances, IPH detection by MRI could be an efficient clinical method to predict stroke. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/upf-1069.html The goal of this review article is to first describe the pathophysiological process responsible for IPH, its histological detection in carotid plaques and its correlation with plaque rupture. The second part will discuss the benefits and limitations of imaging the carotid plaque, and finally the clinical interest of imaging IPH to predict plaque rupture, focusing on MRI-IPH.Carotid artery stenosis (CS) is a major medical problem affecting approximately 10% of the general population 80 years or older and causes stroke in approximately 10% of all ischemic events. In patients with symptomatic, moderate-to-severe CS, carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), has been used to lower the risk of stroke. In primary CS, CEA was found to be superior to best medical therapy (BMT) according to 3 large randomized controlled trials (RCT). Following CEA and CAS, restenosis remains an unsolved problem involving a large number of patients as the current treatment recommendations are not as clear as those for primary stenosis. Several studies have evaluated the risk of restenosis, reporting an incidence ranging from 5% to 22% after CEA and an in-stent restenosis (ISR) rate ranging from 2.7% to 33%. Treatment and optimal management of this disease process, however, is a matter of ongoing debate, and, given the dearth of level 1evidence for the management of these conditions, the relevant guidelines lack clarity. Moreover, the incidence rates of stroke and complications in patients with carotid stenosis are derived from studies that did not use contemporary techniques and materials. Rapidly changing guidelines, updated techniques, and materials, and modern medical treatments make actual incidence rates barely comparable to previous ones. For these reasons, RCTs are critical for determining whether these patients should be treated with more aggressive treatments additional to BMT and identifying those patients indicated for surgical or endovascular treatments. This review summarizes the current evidence and controversies concerning the risks, causes, current treatment options, and prognoses in patients with restenosis after CEA or CAS.The Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis and Risk of Stroke (ACSRS) study is the largest natural history study on patients with 50-99% asymptomatic carotid stenosis (ACS). It included 1,121 ACS individuals with a follow-up between 6 and 96 months (mean 48 months). During the last 15 years, several important ACSRS substudies have been published that have contributed significantly to the optimal management of ACS patients. These studies have demonstrated that specific baseline clinical characteristics and ultrasonic plaque features after image normalization (namely carotid plaque type, gray scale median, carotid plaque area, juxtaluminal black area without a visible echogenic cup, discrete white areas in an echolucent part of a plaque, silent embolic infarcts on brain computed tomography scans, a history of contralateral transient ischemic attacks/strokes) can independently predict future ipsilateral cerebrovascular events. The ACSRS study provided proof that by use of a computer program to normalize plaque images and extract plaque texture features, a combination of features can stratify patients into various categories depending on their stroke risk. The present review will discuss the various reported predictors of future ipsilateral cerebrovascular events and how these characteristics can be used to calculate individual stroke risk.The risk of new or recurrent stroke is high among patients with extracranial carotid artery stenosis and the benefit of carotid revascularization is associated to the degree of luminal stenosis. Catheter-based digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the diagnostic gold-standard for carotid stenosis (CS) has been replaced by non-invasive techniques including duplex ultrasound, computed-tomography angiography, and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). Duplex ultrasound is the primary noninvasive diagnostic tool for detecting, grading and monitoring of carotid artery stenosis due to its low cost, high resolution, and widespread availability. However, as discussed in this review, there is a wide range of practice patterns in use of ultrasound diagnostic criteria for carotid artery stenosis. To date, there is no internationally accepted standard for the gradation of CS. Discrepancies in ultrasound criteria may result in clinically relevant misclassification of disease severity leading to inappropriate referral, or lack of it, to revascularization procedures, and potential for consequential adverse outcome. The Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU), either as originally outlined or in a modified form, are the most common criteria applied. However, such criteria have received criticism for relying primarily on peak systolic velocities, a parameter that when used in isolation could be misleading. Recent proposals rely on a multiparametric approach in which the hemodynamic consequences of carotid narrowing beyond velocity augmentation are considered for an accurate stenosis classification. Consensus criteria would provide standardized parameters for the diagnosis of CS and considerably improve quality of care. Accrediting bodies around the world have called for consensus on unified criteria for diagnosis of CS. A healthy debate between professionals caring for patients with CS regarding optimal CS criteria still continues.