Table 2:

Group medians and IQRs of neck vessel total cross-sectional area at baseline, and follow-up in HC (n = 22) and MS (n = 69) groups

Vessel/Cervical LevelHC BL CSA (mm2) (Median) (IQR)MS BL CSA (mm2) (Median) (IQR)BL CSA MS vs HC (P Value)HC FU CSA (mm2) (Median) (IQR)MS FU CSA (mm2) (Median) (IQR)FU CSA MS vs HC (P Value)HC CSA BL vs FU (P Value)MS CSA BL vs FU (P Value)BL-to-FU MS vs HC CSA (P Value)
CCA–ICAs
    C367.5 (28.1)54.5 (28.3).298a75.6 (30.7)57.6 (32.9).248a.223c.993c.699e
    C473.4 (19.9)79.3 (28.2).298a73.2 (12.9)77.5 (27.3).535a.57c.048c,g.365e
    C569.7 (14.7)75.7 (20.9).298a67.0 (7.9)70.9 (23.5).248a.168c.361c.365e
    C666.7 (10.8)71.5 (16.7).318a66.5 (9.7)67.8 (19.4).474a.223c.222c.603e
    C769.1 (8.9)69.7 (19.8).795a66.3 (7.9)66.5 (20.3).474a.030c,g.005c,g.36e
    WV68.8 (16.4)71.8 (26.2).605b68.1 (15.8)69.0 (26.7).632b.206d.012d,g.967f
VAs
    C331.9 (6.5)31.7 (6.9).597a28.7 (11.5)30.3 (7.2).718a.070c.028c,g.921e
    C430.1 (8.5)30.0 (5.9).597a28.8 (10.8)29.7 (6.5).779a.288c.028c,g.921e
    C529.1 (8.0)29.4 (6.0).597a29.4 (10.6)29.4 (6.3).948a.570c.051c.921e
    C628.4 (7.6)29.7 (6.9).588a27.6 (8.4)28.9 (7.0).718a.570c.051c.921e
    C728.4 (9.2)29.2 (8.1).588a27.0 (8.0)28.6 (8.0).718a.570c.028c,g.92e
    WV29.7 (7.9)30.5 (7.5).406b28.5 (9.8)29.6 (7.9).377b.119d.012d,g.866f
IJVs
    C3100.8 (59.9)105.3 (59.7).956a94.8 (52.9)90.6 (60.8).970a.444c.014c,g.987e
    C4111.4 (44.8)121.8 (67.9).956a107.6 (63.9)102.8 (74.0).970a.444c.008c,g.987e
    C5117.1 (86.7)122.4 (59.8).956a103.9 (89.3)107.9 (71.6).970a.444c.010c,g.987e
    C6116.7 (124.2)118.7 (91.6).956a86.7 (120.0)101.4 (86.9).970a.444c.010c,g.987e
    C7116.9 (174.2)126.3 (95.4).956a109.4 (111.6)113.2 (90.7).970a.935c.008c,g.987e
    WV111.9 (87.0)119.5 (73.5).790b99.3 (76.1)103.8 (76.4).913b.424d.002d,g.680f
  • Note:—BL indicates baseline; FU, follow-up.

  • a–f Group medians and IQR of neck vessel total CSA at baseline and follow-up are reported for HC and MS at each cervical level and for the WV course. To evaluate CSA differences between HC and MS groups at baseline and at follow-up, an independent-samples Mann-Whitney U test (a) was used at each cervical level, while linear mixed models were used for the WV (b). To evaluate differences between baseline and follow-up within each group, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (c) was used at each cervical level, while linear mixed models were used for the WV (d). To perform baseline-to-follow-up CSA comparison between groups, linear mixed models were used at each cervical level (e) and for the WV (f). The Benjamini-Hochberg procedure was performed to correct for multiple comparisons.

  • g An α level of .05 was considered significant.