School of Public Health, Wannan Medical College, Wuhu, Anhui Province, China.
School of Clinical Medicine, Wannan Medical College, Wuhu, Anhui Province, China.
Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2023 Sep 29;44(6):399-409.
This study was aimed to investigate the influence of carotid hemodynamics in common carotid artery (CCA) and internal carotid artery (ICA) on carotid plaque location.
A total of 4444 participants from Anhui Maanshan People's Hospital were selected from December 2013 to December 2018. Doppler ultrasound was used to measure the location of carotid plaque. Patients were divided into four groups according to plaque location: LEFT, RIGHT, BOTH, and NONE. Multiple logistic regression and smooth curve were applied to determine the relationship of carotid plaque location and hemodynamic indexes.
Compared with the NONE group, the ratio of artery systolic and diastolic blood flow velocity in right internal carotid (RICA S/D) was a risk factor for LEFT group (OR=1.548) after adjustment; artery systolic and diastolic blood flow velocity ratio of left common carotid artery (LCCA S/D) was a risk factor for RIGHT group (OR=1.250); resistance index of right internal carotid (RICA RI) was a protective factor for BOTH group (OR=0.097), while LCCA S/D and RICA S/D were risk factors for BOTH group (OR=1.201, OR=1.457). Compared with the RIGHT group, artery systolic and diastolic blood flow velocity ratio of right common carotid (RCCA S/D) was the risk factor for the LEFT group (OR=1.463), LCCA S/D and RICA S/D were the risk factors for BOTH group (OR=1.706, OR=2.111). After age stratification, resistance index of right common carotid artery (RCCA RI) and resistance index of left internal carotid artery (LICA RI) were protective factors for BOTH group (OR=0.046, OR=0.042) in group younger than 52. RCCA S/D and RICA S/D were risk factors for BOTH group (OR=1.557, OR=1.843). Resistance index of left common carotid artery (LCCA RI) was a protective factor in the LEFT group compared with the RIGHT group (OR=0.476). In group older than 52, RICA S/D was a risk factor for LEFT group (OR=1.388). LCCA S/D was a risk factor for RIGHT group (OR=1.575). LCCA S/D and RICA S/D were risk factors for BOTH group (OR=1.348, OR=1.311). RICA S/D and RCCA S/D were protective factors in the LEFT group compared with the RIGHT group (OR=0.567, OR=0.680).
本研究旨在探讨颈总动脉(CCA)和颈内动脉(ICA)的颈动脉血流动力学对颈动脉斑块位置的影响。
2013 年 12 月至 2018 年 12 月,选取安徽马鞍山人民医院 4444 例患者。采用多普勒超声测量颈动脉斑块位置。根据斑块位置将患者分为左、右、双侧和无斑块 4 组。采用多因素逻辑回归和光滑曲线确定颈动脉斑块位置与血流动力学指标的关系。
与无斑块组相比,右侧颈内动脉收缩期和舒张期血流速度比(RICA S/D)校正后为左侧斑块组的危险因素(OR=1.548);左侧颈总动脉收缩期和舒张期血流速度比(LCCA S/D)为右侧斑块组的危险因素(OR=1.250);右侧颈内动脉阻力指数(RICA RI)为双侧斑块组的保护因素(OR=0.097),而 LCCA S/D 和 RICA S/D 为双侧斑块组的危险因素(OR=1.201,OR=1.457)。与右侧斑块组相比,右侧颈总动脉收缩期和舒张期血流速度比(RCCA S/D)为左侧斑块组的危险因素(OR=1.463),LCCA S/D 和 RICA S/D 为双侧斑块组的危险因素(OR=1.706,OR=2.111)。经年龄分层后,52 岁以下患者,右侧颈总动脉阻力指数(RCCA RI)和左侧颈内动脉阻力指数(LICA RI)为双侧斑块组的保护因素(OR=0.046,OR=0.042);RCCA S/D 和 RICA S/D 为双侧斑块组的危险因素(OR=1.557,OR=1.843)。52 岁以上患者,RICA S/D 为左侧斑块组的危险因素(OR=1.388)。LCCA S/D 为右侧斑块组的危险因素(OR=1.575)。LCCA S/D 和 RICA S/D 为双侧斑块组的危险因素(OR=1.348,OR=1.311)。RICA S/D 和 RCCA S/D 为左侧斑块组的保护因素,与右侧斑块组相比(OR=0.567,OR=0.680)。