Skip to main content
Journal of Nutritional Science logoLink to Journal of Nutritional Science
. 2022 Jun 13;11:e47. doi: 10.1017/jns.2022.46

Healthy lifestyle changes favourably affect common carotid intima-media thickness: the Healthy Lifestyle Community Programme (cohort 2)

Christian Koeder 1,2,*, Sarah Husain 2, Ragna-Marie Kranz 2, Corinna Anand 2, Dima Alzughayyar 2, Nora Schoch 2, Andreas Hahn 1, Heike Englert 2
PMCID: PMC9201878  PMID: 35754985

Abstract

Common carotid intima-media thickness (ccIMT) progression is a risk marker for cardiovascular disease (CVD), whereas healthy lifestyle habits are associated with lower ccIMT. The objective of the present study was to test whether a healthy lifestyle intervention can beneficially affect ccIMT progression. A community-based non-randomised, controlled lifestyle intervention was conducted, focusing on a predominantly plant-based diet (strongest emphasis), physical activity, stress management and social health. Assessments of ccIMT were made at baseline, 6 months and 1 year. Participants had an average age of 57 years and were recruited from the general population in rural northwest Germany (intervention: n 114; control: n 87). From baseline to 1 year, mean ccIMT significantly increased in both the intervention (0⋅026 [95 % CI 0⋅012, 0⋅039] mm) and control group (0⋅045 [95 % CI 0⋅033, 0⋅056] mm). The 1-year trajectory of mean ccIMT was lower in the intervention group (P = 0⋅022; adjusted for baseline). In a subgroup analysis with participants with high baseline mean ccIMT (≥0⋅800 mm), mean ccIMT non-significantly decreased in the intervention group (−0⋅016 [95 % CI −0⋅050, 0⋅017] mm; n 18) and significantly increased in the control group (0⋅065 [95 % CI 0⋅033, 0⋅096] mm; n 12). In the subgroup, the 1-year trajectory of mean ccIMT was significantly lower in the intervention group (between-group difference: −0⋅051 [95 % CI −0⋅075, −0⋅027] mm; P < 0⋅001; adjusted for baseline). The results indicate that healthy lifestyle changes may beneficially affect ccIMT within 1 year, particularly if baseline ccIMT is high.

Key words: Cardiovascular prevention, Plant-based diet, Lifestyle medicine, Carotid intima-media thickness, Cardiovascular disease, Cardiovascular health, Preventive medicine

Introduction

Carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) is a marker of pathological arterial wall changes (arterial injury)(13). Often cIMT is referred to as subclinical atherosclerosis(4), although this is controversially discussed(2,3). Increased cIMT is a considerable public health concern(5), and it has been estimated that the worldwide prevalence of increased cIMT (≥1⋅0 mm) is >25 % in individuals aged 30–79 years, equivalent to >1 billion individuals(5).

Most frequently, cIMT is assessed in the common carotid artery(6). Common cIMT (ccIMT) is an established risk marker for cardiovascular disease (CVD) such as myocardial infarction, sudden cardiac death(7) and stroke(8). Positive correlations have been shown between ccIMT and calcification scores of the coronary arteries and the aorta(9) as well as between ccIMT and epicardial adipose tissue(10).

The prospective assessment of ccIMT in clinical trials offers the possibility to test the effect of the intervention on the arterial structure, and this constitutes a more direct measure of artery health compared to serological markers, while at the same time avoiding invasive, complicated and very expensive procedures(1,3,11). A recent meta-analysis of clinical trials, including dietary interventions, has shown that changes in ccIMT progression are able to predict changes in CVD risk, that even relatively small changes are relevant, and that ccIMT progression can thus be considered a suitable parameter for intervention studies(12).

Current evidence indicates that a dietary pattern with a strong emphasis on healthy plant-based components, a high water intake and lower intakes of unhealthy plant-based foods and of meat is associated with lower ccIMT(4,1315).

Thus, the objective of the present study was to test if a healthy lifestyle intervention would beneficially affect ccIMT within 1 year (among other CVD risk markers(16)).

Materials and methods

Study design

The study was a non-randomised controlled trial, and ccIMT was assessed at baseline, 6 months and 1 year. The study had been planned with a duration of 2 years, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic we did not include the 1½-year time point (uneven time delays between groups; included in sensitivity analyses) or the 2-year time point (no assessment in the control group).

The intervention consisted of a lifestyle programme, and the control group received no intervention. Randomisation was not feasible, as described previously(17). Both groups were recruited in two separate and comparable small towns in order to keep the participants of the control group unaware of the lifestyle recommendations given to the intervention group. The intervention group was recruited at a public market (February 2018) and by word of mouth, while the control group was recruited at a local public event (September 2018). The funding was provided for a specific time period, at relatively short notice and there were insufficient resources (time and staff) to recruit and start both study arms at the same time. Therefore, the intervention group started 6 months earlier (April 2018) than the control group study arm (October 2018), with equivalent follow-up intervals. The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS; reference: DRKS00018775; www.drks.de).

Participants

For the intervention and control groups, a total of 114 and 87 participants, respectively, were recruited. Participants were mostly middle-aged and elderly individuals from the general population in rural northwest Germany. As a community-based intervention, the only inclusion criteria were the physical and mental ability to participate and to be ≥18 years old. This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki and all procedures involving human subjects were approved by the ethics committee of the Medical Association of Westphalia-Lippe and of the University of Münster (Münster, Germany; reference: 2018-171-f-S; approved 4 April 2018). Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

Lifestyle programme

The lifestyle intervention has been described previously(17). In brief, the intervention included an intensive phase (first 10 weeks; 14 seminars and 8 workshops) and a less intensive phase (monthly seminars). The focus of the intervention was on four areas of lifestyle change: a healthy, predominantly plant-based diet (strongest emphasis), physical activity, stress management and social health. Dietary recommendations were to consume more healthy plant foods (fruit, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, including soya foods, nuts, seeds and healthy oils) and to reduce the intake of unhealthy plant foods (added sugars, salt, refined grains, alcohol excess) and of animal-source foods (particularly meat)(18). Participants also received a healthy lifestyle handbook, a recipe booklet and a laminated information sheet with an overview of the lifestyle recommendations(17) (Supplementary material).

Assessment of parameters

Measurements of ccIMT were conducted in accordance with the Mannheim consensus(19), as described previously(17) (Supplementary material). Dietary intake was assessed with semi-quantitative 3-d food protocols. Adherence to dietary recommendations was assessed with the plant-based diet index (PDI), healthful PDI (hPDI) and unhealthful PDI (uPDI)(18) (as described previously(16)). As the association of the intakes of potatoes, fish, eggs and dairy with ccIMT are less certain, whereas hPDI includes these food groups as negatives, we also conducted a post hoc analysis with a modified hPDI (excluding the food groups potatoes, fish, eggs and dairy). Physical activity (in categories) and socio-demographic parameters were assessed using questionnaires.

Study hypotheses

In terms of mean and max ccIMT, the study hypotheses were that the intervention would significantly decrease mean and max ccIMT (within-group and compared to control; from baseline to 1 year and from baseline to 1½ years). The two main hypotheses were regarding the between-group changes (mean and max ccIMT: 1-year changes). Any detected differences in the secondary end points mean and max ccIMT are considered exploratory.

Sample size calculation

The primary outcome parameter of the study was body weight(16), for which a sample size calculation was conducted, and a further sample size calculation was conducted for the secondary parameter ccIMT (as described previously(17)).

Statistical analyses

Between-group differences in baseline characteristics were assessed using Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and independent t test and Mann–Whitney U test for normally and non-normally distributed continuous variables, respectively (as described previously(17)). To evaluate within-group changes, paired t test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used for normally and non-normally distributed data, respectively. Correlations were assessed with Spearman's rho correlations. All tests were two-sided.

To evaluate between-group differences in 1-year trajectories of ccIMT, a repeated measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used, with baseline ccIMT and potential confounders (especially age and sex) as covariates. Holm–Bonferroni correction was conducted to adjust for multiple comparisons. As it has been shown that baseline ccIMT is inversely associated with ccIMT change(20) and ccIMT may thus more strongly decrease in those with high baseline ccIMT(21), subgroup analyses were conducted, including only participants with high baseline mean ccIMT (≥0⋅800 mm). Analyses were based on unimputed data (complete case analysis, CCA). In sensitivity analyses, imputed data (last observation carried forward, LOCF) were used. Sensitivity analyses using log-transformed (lg10) ccIMT values were also conducted. All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 25.0. Armonk, NY).

Results

Baseline characteristics

For a total of 126 participants (intervention: 71; control: 55), ccIMT values were available for all three measurement time points (baseline, 6 months and 12 months). The flow of participants through the study is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Flowchart of participants through the study.

At baseline, the intervention group had a significantly higher age and educational level (Table 1). Baseline hPDI was also significantly higher in the intervention group (by 4⋅3 [95 % CI 2⋅0, 6⋅5] portions/day; P < 0⋅001), while PDI and uPDI were not significantly different between groups. Frequency of intense physical activity was higher in the control group (P = 0⋅031) when assessed by categories, but physical activity (gentle, moderate and intense) was not significantly different between groups when assessed by minutes/week.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of evaluable participants (CCA)

Characteristics Intervention (n 71) Control (n 55) P-value*
Mean or n sem or % Mean or n sem or %
Women, n (%) 50 70⋅4 34 61⋅8 0⋅344a
Age, years 59⋅4 1⋅0 55⋅3 1⋅3 0⋅015b
Mean ccIMT, mm 0⋅695 0⋅016 0⋅674 0⋅019 0⋅363c
Max ccIMT, mm 0⋅856 0⋅019 0⋅825 0⋅023 0⋅263c
Body weight, kg 81⋅4 2⋅2 84⋅4 2⋅5 0⋅269c
BMI, kg/m2 27⋅6 0⋅6 28⋅3 0⋅8 0⋅524c
WC, cm 98⋅2 1⋅8 97⋅5 2⋅1 0⋅957c
Overweight, n (%) 46 64⋅8 38 69⋅1 0⋅704a
Obese, n (%) 20 28⋅2 15 27⋅3 1⋅000a
Systolic BP, mmHg 132⋅0 1⋅7 133⋅2 2⋅1 0⋅658b
Diastolic BP, mmHg 79⋅9 0⋅9 80⋅1 1⋅3 0⋅998c
Pulse pressure, mmHg 52⋅1 1⋅4 53⋅1 1⋅6 0⋅626b
RHR, beats/min 68⋅1 1⋅3 69⋅4 1⋅2 0⋅508b
TC, mg/dl 207⋅5 4⋅7 208⋅9 6⋅0 0⋅863b
LDL-C (measured), mg/dl 133⋅0 4⋅4 140⋅6 5⋅9 0⋅292b
LDL-C (calculated), mg/dl 121⋅0 4⋅5 125⋅5 5⋅6 0⋅526b
non-HDL-C, mg/dl 141⋅1 5⋅2 146⋅8 5⋅7 0⋅465b
REM-C, mg/dl 8⋅0 1⋅3 6⋅1 1⋅8 0⋅112c
HDL-C, mg/dl 66⋅5 2⋅2 62⋅1 2⋅4 0⋅184b
TAG, mg/dl 100⋅1 5⋅7 114⋅6 10⋅8 0⋅301c
Glucose, mg/dl 98⋅2 1⋅4 101⋅4 1⋅9 0⋅679c
HbA1c, % 5⋅4 0⋅0 5⋅5 0⋅1 0⋅816c
Insulin, μU/ml 10⋅9 0⋅8 12⋅4 1⋅1 0⋅223c
hs-CRP, mg/dl 0⋅12 0⋅02 0⋅30 0⋅08 0⋅304c
Hcy, μmol/l 12⋅5 0⋅5 11⋅9 0⋅4 0⋅614c
Smoker status
Never 43 60⋅6 27 49⋅1 0⋅238a
Ex 20 28⋅2 16 29⋅1
Smoker 8 11⋅3 12 21⋅8
Marital status
Married 58 81⋅7 49 89⋅1 0⋅499a
Partner (unmarried) 4 5⋅6 1 1⋅8
Single (not widowed) 6 8⋅5 2 3⋅6
Single (widowed) 3 4⋅2 2 3⋅6
Educational level
Lower secondary school 15 21⋅1 22 40⋅0 0⋅002a
Secondary school 30 42⋅3 15 27⋅3
University entrance qualification 11 15⋅5 15 27⋅3
University degree 15 21⋅1 2 3⋅6
PDI, points 29⋅0 1⋅8 25⋅4 2⋅3 0⋅205b
hPDI, points –6⋅2 2⋅4 –19⋅1 2⋅3 <0⋅001c
uPDI, points –35⋅6 2⋅5 –27⋅8 2⋅5 0⋅070c

Values are means ± sem except for qualitative variables which are expressed as n (%).

CCA, complete case analysis; ccIMT, common carotid intima-media thickness; BMI, body mass index; WC, waist circumference; BP, blood pressure; RHR, resting heart rate; TC, total cholesterol; LDL-C, LDL cholesterol; non-HDL-C, non-HDL cholesterol; REM-C, remnant cholesterol; HDL-C, HDL cholesterol; TAG, triacylglycerols; hs-CRP, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; Hcy, homocysteine; PDI, plant-based diet index; hPDI, healthful PDI; uPDI, unhealthful PDI; sem, standard error of the mean; IN, intervention; CON: control.

P-values in bold are values below 0.05.

*

P-value for between-group comparisons by:

a

Fisher's exact test (two-sided).

b

Independent t test (two-sided).

c

Mann–Whitney U test (two-sided).

TC, measured LDL-C, non-HDL-C, REM-C, HDL-C, TAG, glucose, HbA1c, insulin: n 70 (IN); calculated LDL-C, PDI, hPDI, uPDI: n 70 (IN), n 54 (CON); hs-CRP: n 54 (IN), n 36 (CON); Hcy: n 57 (IN), n 54 (CON); Marital status, educational level: n 54 (CON).

Furthermore, a higher percentage of participants with a history of cancer (intervention: 9⋅9 %; control: 0 %; P = 0⋅018) and a higher percentage of participants with a family history (parents) of myocardial infarction or stroke (intervention: 56⋅3 %; control: 36⋅4 %; P = 0⋅031) were observed in the intervention group.

At baseline, there were no significant between-group differences in terms of ccIMT and a variety of other CVD parameters (Table 1). Similarly, there were no significant between-group differences in terms of alcohol intake frequency or the percentage of participants with (based on baseline values) hypertension, high values for total cholesterol (TC), LDL cholesterol (LDL-C; measured and calculated), non-HDL cholesterol (non-HDL-C), triacylglycerols (TAG), glucose or HbA1c or who had low HDL cholesterol (HDL-C). Furthermore, there were no significant between-group differences in terms of the percentage of those with a history of stroke, with a family history (siblings, grandparents) of myocardial infarction or stroke, or with any of a large variety of diagnosed disease conditions (hypertension, dyslipidaemia, heart disease, stroke, peripheral artery disease, diabetes, retinopathy, peripheral neuropathy, diabetic foot, kidney disease, allergies, gastrointestinal disease, thyroid disease, depression, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic pain, lung disease, bone disease as well as ‘other disease’ and ‘free of diagnosed disease’). There were no significant differences in any of the baseline characteristics (as listed in Table 1) between the group of participants with complete ccIMT data and with incomplete ccIMT data (P > 0⋅07).

Seminar attendance

Compliance in the intervention group, defined as seminar attendance during the 10-week intensive phase of the lifestyle intervention, was relatively high: 60 out of the 71 evaluable participants (84⋅5 %) attended ≥10 (out of 14) seminars.

Repeatability of ccIMT measurements

Repeatability (within-assay precision) of the two repeated measurements of mean and max ccIMT was good at all time points (mean ccIMT: r > 0⋅94; max ccIMT: r > 0⋅88). Mean differences in repeated measurements were small for both mean ccIMT (between 0⋅000 and 0⋅005 mm) and max ccIMT (between 0⋅003 and 0⋅007 mm).

Mean ccIMT changes from baseline to 1 year

From baseline to 1 year, mean ccIMT significantly increased in both the intervention (0⋅026 [95 % CI 0⋅012, 0⋅039] mm; P = 0⋅001; n 71) and control group (0⋅045 [95 % CI 0⋅033, 0⋅056] mm; P < 0⋅001; n 55; Fig. 2; Supplementary Table S1). The 1-year trajectory of mean ccIMT was significantly lower in the intervention group compared to control (between-group difference: –0⋅012 [95 % CI –0⋅022, –0⋅002] mm; P = 0⋅022; adjusted for baseline mean ccIMT). This result remained significant after Holm–Bonferroni correction. This result was also confirmed when adjusting for baseline mean ccIMT, age and sex (P = 0⋅038; Fig. 2; Supplementary Table S1) or additionally for educational level, history of cancer, family history (parents) of myocardial infarction or stroke, and baseline hPDI (P = 0⋅045). Furthermore, this result was confirmed after adjusting (in addition to baseline mean ccIMT, age and sex) for baseline smoker status and alcohol intake (P = 0⋅040), for changes in smoker status and alcohol intake (P = 0⋅028), for baseline glucose, HbA1c, systolic BP and pulse pressure (P = 0⋅029), for baseline homocysteine (Hcy; P = 0⋅041) or for changes (Δ[baseline, 1 year]) in diastolic BP (P = 0⋅039). Apart from baseline mean ccIMT, none of the covariates had a significant influence on the models. Using log-transformed covariates confirmed the results.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

1-year mean and max ccIMT trajectories. Values are means and 95 % confidence intervals (adjusted for baseline). Whole group: (a and d) (IN: n 71; CON: n 55); subgroup with baseline mean ccIMT <0⋅8 mm: (b and e) (IN: n 53; CON: n 43); subgroup with baseline mean ccIMT ≥0⋅8 mm: (c and f) (IN: n 18; CON: n 12); P-values for between-group difference in 1-year trajectories of ccIMT (by ANCOVA; adjusted for baseline): (a) P = 0⋅022; (b) P = 0⋅970; (c) P < 0⋅001; (d) P = 0⋅117; (e) P = 0⋅965; (f) P = 0⋅023. ccIMT, common carotid intima-media thickness; IN, intervention group; CON, control group.

However, in a sensitivity analysis comparing the 1½-year trajectories of mean ccIMT, the between-group difference was non-significant (–0⋅010 [95 % CI –0⋅022, 0⋅003] mm; P = 0⋅119; adjusted for baseline; intervention: n 63; control: n 47; Supplementary Table S2). Similarly, a sensitivity analysis with imputed data (LOCF) demonstrated no significant between-group difference in 1-year trajectories of mean ccIMT (P = 0⋅815; adjusted for baseline; intervention: n 101; control: n 75; Supplementary Table S3). A sensitivity analysis with imputed data (LOCF) comparing the 1½-year trajectories also attenuated the results (P = 0⋅853; adjusted for baseline). In addition, the favourable effect of the intervention was also attenuated in sensitivity analyses using log-transformed (lg10) mean ccIMT values (1-year trajectories: P = 0⋅051; 1½-year trajectories: P = 0⋅277; adjusted for baseline).

Max ccIMT changes from baseline to 1 year

From baseline to 1 year, max ccIMT non-significantly increased in the intervention group (0⋅006 [95 % CI −0⋅015, 0⋅028] mm; P = 0⋅165; n 71) but significantly increased in the control group (0⋅034 [95 % CI 0⋅015, 0⋅053] mm; P = 0⋅001; n 55; Fig. 2; absolute values at each time point are can be found in Supplementary Table S1). The 1-year trajectory of max ccIMT was not significantly different between the intervention and control groups (between-group difference: −0⋅013 [95 % CI −0⋅030, 0⋅003] mm; P = 0⋅117; adjusted for baseline max ccIMT). This between-group difference remained non-significant after adjusting for baseline max ccIMT, age and sex (P = 0⋅098; Fig. 2; absolute values at each time point can be found in Supplementary Table S1). In contrast, the 1-year trajectory of max ccIMT was significantly lower after adjusting for baseline max ccIMT, age, sex, educational level, history of cancer, family history (parents) of myocardial infarction or stroke, and baseline hPDI (P = 0⋅041) or for baseline max ccIMT, age, sex and changes in smoker status and alcohol intake (P = 0⋅045). This result was again attenuated when adjusting (in addition to baseline max ccIMT, age and sex) for baseline smoker status and alcohol intake (P = 0⋅093), for baseline TAG, glucose, HbA1c, systolic BP, pulse pressure and waist circumference (P = 0⋅061), for baseline hs-CRP (P = 0⋅154), for baseline Hcy (P = 0⋅093) or for changes (Δ[baseline, 1 year]) in body weight and BMI (P = 0⋅164). Apart from baseline max ccIMT, none of the covariates had a significant influence on the models. Using log-transformed covariates confirmed the results.

Similarly, this result was confirmed by a sensitivity analysis comparing the 1½-year trajectories of max ccIMT (−0⋅014 [95 % CI −0⋅034, 0⋅006] mm; P = 0⋅164; adjusted for baseline; Supplementary Table S2), a sensitivity analysis with imputed data (LOCF; P = 0⋅756; adjusted for baseline; Supplementary Table S3) as well as a sensitivity analysis with imputed data (LOCF) comparing the 1½-year trajectories of max ccIMT (P = 0⋅846; adjusted for baseline). Similarly, this result was confirmed in sensitivity analyses using log-transformed (lg10) max ccIMT values (1-year trajectories: P = 0⋅200; 1½-year trajectories: P = 0⋅295; adjusted for baseline).

Mean ccIMT changes from baseline to 1 year (subgroup analysis)

In a subgroup analysis including only participants with mean ccIMT ≥0⋅800 mm, from baseline to 1 year, mean ccIMT non-significantly decreased in the intervention group (−0⋅016 [95 % CI −0⋅050, 0⋅017] mm; P = 0⋅311; n 18) and significantly increased in the control group (0⋅065 [95 % CI 0⋅033, 0⋅096] mm; P = 0⋅001; n 12; Fig. 2; Supplementary Table S4). The 1-year trajectory of mean ccIMT was significantly lower in the intervention group than in control (between-group difference: −0⋅051 [95 % CI −0⋅075, −0⋅027] mm; P < 0⋅001; adjusted for baseline mean ccIMT). This result remained significant after adjusting for baseline mean ccIMT, sex and age (P < 0⋅001; Fig. 2; absolute values at each time point can be found in Supplementary Table S4). Due to the low number of cases in the subgroup, only these covariates were adjusted for. However, in sensitivity analyses, further covariates were added: the between-group difference remained significant after adjusting for baseline mean ccIMT, age, sex, educational level, history of cancer, family history (parents) of myocardial infarction or stroke and baseline hPDI (P < 0⋅001). Similarly, this result was confirmed when adjusting (in addition to baseline mean ccIMT, age and sex) for baseline smoker status and alcohol intake (P < 0⋅001), for changes in smoker status and alcohol intake (P < 0⋅001), for baseline glucose, HbA1c, systolic BP and pulse pressure (P < 0⋅001), for baseline Hcy (P < 0⋅001) or for changes (Δ[baseline, 1 year]) in diastolic BP (P < 0⋅001). Apart from baseline mean ccIMT, age and sex, none of the covariates had a significant influence on any of the models. Using log-transformed covariates confirmed the results.

Furthermore, this result was confirmed in a sensitivity analysis comparing the 1½-year trajectories (P = 0⋅001; adjusted for baseline; Supplementary Table S5), a sensitivity analysis with imputed data (LOCF) comparing the 1-year trajectories (P < 0⋅001; adjusted for baseline; intervention: n 23; control: n 15; Supplementary Table S6), and a sensitivity analysis with imputed data (LOCF) comparing the 1½-year trajectories (P = 0⋅002; adjusted for baseline; P < 0⋅001, adjusted for baseline, age and sex).

In addition, the favourable effect of the intervention was confirmed in sensitivity analyses using log-transformed (lg10) mean ccIMT values (1-year trajectories: P < 0⋅001; 1½-year trajectories: P = 0⋅001; adjusted for baseline). Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis with a cut-off value of 0⋅790 mm (the 75th percentile of baseline mean ccIMT in our study population) confirmed the results (intervention: n 19; control: n 12; between-group difference: −0⋅059 [95 % CI −0⋅082, −0⋅035] mm; P < 0⋅001; adjusted for age and sex).

Max ccIMT changes from baseline to 1 year (subgroup analysis)

In the same subgroup, from baseline to 1 year, max ccIMT non-significantly decreased in the intervention group (−0⋅023 [95 % CI −0⋅071, 0⋅025] mm; P = 0⋅327; n 18) and non-significantly increased in the control group (0⋅041 [95 % CI −0⋅020, 0⋅102] mm; P = 0⋅168; n 12; Fig. 2; absolute values at each time point can be found in Supplementary Table S4). The 1-year trajectory of max ccIMT was significantly lower in the intervention group than in control (between-group difference: −0⋅046 [95 % CI −0⋅085, −0⋅007] mm; P = 0⋅023; adjusted for baseline max ccIMT). Adjusting for baseline max ccIMT, age and sex confirmed this result (P = 0⋅003). In sensitivity analyses, this result was confirmed when adjusting (in addition to baseline max ccIMT, age and sex) for educational level, history of cancer, family history (parents) of myocardial infarction or stroke and baseline hPDI (P = 0⋅007), for baseline smoker status and alcohol intake (P = 0⋅001), for changes in smoker status and alcohol intake (P = 0⋅004), for baseline TAG, glucose, HbA1c, systolic BP, pulse pressure and waist circumference (P = 0⋅003), for baseline hs-CRP (P = 0⋅027), for baseline Hcy (P = 0⋅008) or for changes (Δ[baseline, 1 year]) in body weight and BMI (P = 0⋅001). Apart from baseline max ccIMT, age and sex, none of these covariates had a significant influence on any of the models. Using log-transformed covariates confirmed the results.

A sensitivity analysis comparing the 1½-year trajectories of max ccIMT attenuated the result when adjusting for baseline max ccIMT (P = 0⋅061; adjusted for baseline; Supplementary Table S5) but confirmed the result when adjusting for baseline max ccIMT, age and sex (P = 0⋅011; Supplementary Table S5). This result was also confirmed by a sensitivity analysis with imputed data (LOCF) comparing the 1-year trajectories (P = 0⋅017; adjusted for baseline; Supplementary Table S6) and a sensitivity analysis with imputed data (LOCF) comparing the 1½-year trajectories of max ccIMT (P = 0⋅023, adjusted for baseline; P = 0⋅002, adjusted for baseline, age and sex).

In addition, the favourable effect of the intervention was also confirmed in sensitivity analyses using log-transformed (lg10) max ccIMT values (1-year trajectories: P = 0⋅004; 1½-year trajectories: P = 0⋅020; adjusted for baseline and age). Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis with a cut-off value of 0⋅790 mm (the 75th percentile of baseline mean ccIMT in our study population) confirmed the results (intervention: n 19; control: n 12; between-group difference: −0⋅065 [95 % CI −0⋅104, −0⋅026] mm; P = 0⋅002; adjusted for age and sex).

Changes in diet scores and physical activity from baseline to 1 year

Compared to control, in the intervention group, the 1-year trajectories of PDI and hPDI were higher by 2⋅7 (95 % CI 1⋅7, 3⋅6) food portions/day and 3⋅9 (95 % CI 2⋅7, 5⋅0) food portions/day, respectively, while the 1-year trajectory of uPDI showed a decrease of −2⋅7 (95 % CI −3⋅7, −1⋅7) food portions/day (between-group differences: P < 0⋅001; adjusted for baseline). Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the favourable dietary changes were maintained at 1½ years (between-group differences: P < 0⋅001; adjusted for baseline).

A post hoc analysis showed that in the intervention group the 1-year trajectory of a modified hPDI (excluding the food groups potatoes, fish, eggs and dairy) was higher by 3⋅7 (95 % CI 2⋅7, 4⋅6) food portions/day (compared to control; between-group difference: P < 0⋅001; adjusted for baseline). These results were maintained at 1½ years (between-group differences: P < 0⋅001; adjusted for baseline).

At the food group level, results confirmed that participants of the intervention group were adhering to the recommendations, with significantly increased intakes (1-year trajectories) of fruit, vegetables, whole grains, legumes and nuts (approximately half a food portion/day higher, compared to control) as well as small increases in vegetable oil and fish intake. Conversely, in the intervention group, decreased intakes of meat, sweets/desserts and refined grains (approximately −0⋅3 to −0⋅4 portions/day) were observed, with small decreases also in the intakes of margarine, eggs and miscellaneous animal-source foods (compared to control). There were no significant between-group differences regarding the intakes (1-year trajectories) of tea, coffee, fruit juice, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages, animal fats, dairy or alcohol. No significant between-group differences were observed for the 1-year trajectories of intense, moderate or gentle physical activity (P > 0⋅09). This was confirmed for the 1½-year trajectories of physical activity (P > 0⋅10).

Bivariate correlations of changes (Δ[baseline, 1 year]) in ccIMT and other markers

Bivariate correlations of changes in mean and max ccIMT with changes in other CVD markers as well as changes in dietary scores are shown in Table 2. For mean ccIMT change, a significant (although weak) correlation was only observed with changes in diastolic BP (Table 2). For max ccIMT change, significant correlations were only observed for changes in body weight, BMI and uPDI (Table 2). In addition, mean ccIMT change inversely correlated with baseline mean ccIMT (r = −0⋅179; P = 0⋅044), and max ccIMT change inversely correlated with baseline max ccIMT (r = −0⋅259; P = 0⋅003).

Table 2.

Bivariate correlations of changes (Δ[baseline, 1 year]) in ccIMT and other markers

Parameter changes Correlation with mean ccIMT change Correlation with max ccIMT change n
Correlation coefficient P-value Correlation coefficient P-value
Body weight 0⋅165 0⋅066 0⋅207 0⋅020 125
BMI 0⋅169 0⋅059 0⋅206 0⋅021 125
WC 0⋅077 0⋅393 0⋅144 0⋅109 125
Systolic BP 0⋅169 0⋅059 0⋅114 0⋅204 125
Diastolic BP 0⋅182 0⋅042 0⋅057 0⋅531 125
Pulse pressure 0⋅051 0⋅571 0⋅117 0⋅193 125
RHR −0⋅065 0⋅472 −0⋅044 0⋅629 125
TC −0⋅048 0⋅599 0⋅012 0⋅893 124
LDL-C (measured) −0⋅060 0⋅505 −0⋅009 0⋅922 124
LDL-C (calculated) −0⋅066 0⋅470 −0⋅005 0⋅959 123
Non-HDL-C −0⋅074 0⋅415 −0⋅013 0⋅882 124
REM-C 0⋅015 0⋅865 0⋅033 0⋅715 124
HDL-C −0⋅006 0⋅948 0⋅008 0⋅934 124
TAG −0⋅006 0⋅947 0⋅007 0⋅941 124
Glucose −0⋅019 0⋅833 0⋅074 0⋅417 124
HbA1c 0⋅032 0⋅728 0⋅116 0⋅199 124
Insulin −0⋅109 0⋅227 −0⋅019 0⋅831 124
hs-CRP −0⋅062 0⋅541 0⋅013 0⋅901 98
Hcy −0⋅084 0⋅384 −0⋅140 0⋅144 110
PDI 0⋅103 0⋅262 −−0⋅031 0⋅741 120
hPDI −0⋅043 0⋅638 −0⋅145 0⋅113 120
uPDI 0⋅075 0⋅413 0⋅240 0⋅008 120

Correlations coefficients: spearman's rho; ccIMT, common carotid intima-media thickness; BMI, body mass index; WC, waist circumference; BP, blood pressure; RHR, resting heart rate; TC, total cholesterol; LDL-C, LDL cholesterol; non-HDL-C, non-HDL cholesterol; REM-C, remnant cholesterol; HDL-C, HDL cholesterol; TAG, triacylglycerols; hs-CRP, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; Hcy, homocysteine; PDI, plant-based diet index; hPDI, healthful PDI; uPDI, unhealthful PDI.

P-values in bold are values below 0.05.

In the subgroup of participants with baseline mean ccIMT ≥0⋅800 mm, changes in uPDI positively correlated with changes in mean ccIMT (r = 0⋅370; P = 0⋅048) and max ccIMT (r = 0⋅539; P = 0⋅003) [n 29], while no significant correlations between changes in mean or max ccIMT and changes in PDI, hPDI or CVD markers were observed.

A post hoc analysis showed that changes in the modified hPDI (excluding the food groups potatoes, fish, eggs and dairy) inversely correlated with max ccIMT change (r = −0⋅229; P = 0⋅012). This result was confirmed in the subgroup of participants with high baseline ccIMT (r = −0⋅460; P = 0⋅012). Mean ccIMT change did not significantly correlate with changes in modified hPDI.

Mean and max ccIMT changes stratified by baseline risk factors

1-year trajectories of mean ccIMT and max ccIMT did not significantly differ between men and women (P = 0⋅313; P = 0⋅208) or between participants with or without overweight (P = 0⋅365; P = 0⋅707) or with or without obesity (P = 0⋅940; P = 0⋅938). Similarly, 1-year trajectories of mean ccIMT and max ccIMT did not significantly differ by smoker status (P = 0⋅467; P = 0⋅449), categories of alcohol intake (P = 0⋅547; P = 0⋅591), marital status (P = 0⋅921; P = 0⋅931) or educational level (P = 0⋅578; P = 0⋅579; all adjusted for baseline).

Discussion

The present study had the aim of examining the effect of a community-based lifestyle intervention on changes in mean and max ccIMT (among other CVD markers(16)). While the intervention resulted in significant dietary improvements, in line with the recommendations given, physical activity did not significantly increase over the course of 1 year. Previously we reported that, with all participants included, the intervention had no significant effect on ccIMT within 6 months in the whole study group but that in a subgroup of participants with high baseline ccIMT (mean ccIMT ≥0⋅800 mm) the intervention resulted in significantly lower (more favourable) mean and max ccIMT changes compared to control(17). The present 1-year analyses (and 1½-year sensitivity analyses) confirm this result of significantly slowed down mean ccIMT and max ccIMT progression in the subgroup with high baseline ccIMT. This result is in line with the results of the PREDIMED-Navarra study, a 1-year controlled intervention with a traditional Mediterranean diet, which showed significant effects on ccIMT only in the subgroup with high baseline ccIMT (mean ccIMT ≥0⋅9 mm)(21). Comparable subgroup results from other studies seem to not have been published(22).

A recent meta-analysis suggests that every 0⋅010 mm reduction in mean ccIMT progression can reduce CVD event risk by 10–15 %(12). Therefore, the between-group difference (−0⋅051 [95 % CI −0⋅075, −0⋅027] mm) observed in the high-baseline subgroup of the present study appears to be clinically relevant. In contrast to the previously reported 6-month results(17), with all participants included, the present 1-year analysis showed a significantly lower (slowed down) mean ccIMT progression in the intervention group. However, this between-group difference (−0⋅012 [95 % CI −0⋅022, −0⋅002] mm) was small and was attenuated in sensitivity analyses comparing the 1½-year trajectories. Nevertheless, it can be hypothesised that the clinical benefit of this effect may increase over time, if participants maintain the achieved lifestyle changes in the future(20,23).

To date, only a small number of controlled trials have assessed the effect of a combined lifestyle intervention (including diet and other lifestyle factors) on ccIMT(22,2428), and only two of these trials were conducted with generally healthy participants(27,28): in a suburban population in Japan, Okada et al. observed no significant effect of a 2-year lifestyle modification on mean ccIMT change (compared to control; dietary recommendations were based on the goals of the National Cholesterol Education Program; <30 % total fat, <7 % saturated fat and <200 mg dietary cholesterol per day)(27). Similarly, in a study with perimenopausal women in the United States, Wildman et al. observed no significant effect of a 4-year diet (≤25 % total fat, ≤7 % saturated fat, ≤100 mg dietary cholesterol and 1300 kcal/d) and exercise intervention on mean ccIMT change (compared to control)(28). In terms of diet-only interventions (i.e. interventions focused solely on a change in dietary pattern), no controlled trials assessing ccIMT change seem to have been conducted with generally healthy participants. Thus, our study appears to be the first controlled trial (lifestyle or dietary) to have shown a significant intervention effect on ccIMT in a community-based sample of mostly generally healthy participants from the general population.

Apart from our study, only one controlled trial appears to have assessed the effect of a combined lifestyle intervention including a strong focus on a predominantly plant-based diet on ccIMT(25). In the present study, Aldana et al. observed no effect of a 1-year intervention including a very low-fat plant-based diet (Ornish Program) on ccIMT in patients with clinically confirmed coronary artery disease (compared to usual care)(25). In contrast to our study, healthful plant-based high-fat foods (such as nuts, extra virgin olive oil or cold-pressed rapeseed oil) were not recommended in the Ornish Program(25), whereas more recent evidence suggests that these foods may not just improve cardiovascular health in general(29) but may also beneficially affect ccIMT(20,21). In terms of diet-only interventions, five controlled trials have assessed the effect of moving towards a more plant-based diet on ccIMT: four of these studies used a Mediterranean diet (in Spain(20,21,30) and Italy(23)), and one study used a Mediterranean-like diet (in Norway(31,32)). All of these studies were conducted with participants at higher CVD risk, with four out of these five studies showing a significant favourable effect on ccIMT(20,21,23,31,32). In contrast, two controlled trials observed that a low-carbohydrate diet had no significant effect on ccIMT in type 2 diabetes patients after 1 year (United States(33)) and 1½ years (Taiwan(34)), respectively. As no comparable studies could be identified, our study appears to be the first controlled trial (lifestyle or dietary) which tested the effect of recommending a predominantly plant-based diet (centred around fruit, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts/seeds and healthy oils) on ccIMT in a study sample of mostly generally healthy participants(31).

Similarly, our study appears to be the first controlled trial (lifestyle or dietary) to assess correlations between ccIMT changes and changes in PDI, hPDI and uPDI as well as between ccIMT changes and Hcy changes. Apart from a dietary intervention study by Petersen et al.(35), our study also appears to be the only controlled trial (lifestyle or dietary) to have correlated ccIMT changes with hs-CRP changes. While we observed that uPDI change positively correlated with max ccIMT change (and in the subgroup analyses with both mean and max ccIMT changes), we did not observe significant correlations of ccIMT change with changes in Hcy or hs-CRP. As in our study, Petersen et al. found no significant correlation of mean ccIMT change with hs-CRP change(35). The positive correlations of uPDI change with changes in mean ccIMT (r = 0⋅370) and max ccIMT (r = 0⋅539), which we observed in the high-baseline subgroup, indicate that the favourable effects on ccIMT were partially mediated by the observed decrease in uPDI. The results do not indicate a strong role of PDI or hPDI changes in the observed favourable effects. However, the significant inverse correlation of a modified hPDI (excluding the food groups potatoes, fish, eggs and dairy) with max ccIMT change which we observed indicates that an increased intake of healthful plant foods and a decreased intake of certain animal-source foods may also contribute to lower max ccIMT progression, although we observed a significant beneficial effect on max ccIMT change only in the subgroup analysis.

Among diet-only interventions, Jimenez et al. and Maiorino et al. observed a favourable effect on mean ccIMT in their intervention groups following a traditional Mediterranean diet after 5 and 7 years (coronary heart disease patients; Spain(20)) and after 4 and ~8 years (type 2 diabetes patients; Italy(23)), respectively. It should be noted that both studies compared their intervention groups to control groups following healthy low-fat diets(20,23), which may underestimate(36) but may also overestimate the effect (e.g. Jimenez et al. observed a decrease in Mediterranean diet adherence in the low-fat control(20)). In addition to the significant effects at 4 and ~8 years, Maiorino et al. observed a non-significant, favourable effect on mean ccIMT change at 2 years (between-group difference: P = 0⋅050(23)), which indicates that longer study durations may increase the likelihood of observing significant effects on ccIMT. While in our study dietary improvements (compared to control) were similarly maintained at 1 year and 1½ years, it should be considered that in lifestyle and dietary interventions, adherence to recommendations may decrease over time, especially in generally healthy participants, and that dietary changes may occur in the no-intervention control group. Furthermore, our study indicates that dropout rates can be high in study populations of generally healthy individuals, potentially making long-term (≥4 years)(23) follow-up less feasible. We observed that the small but significant intervention effect on mean ccIMT at 1 year (P = 0⋅022) became non-significant at 1½ years (P = 0⋅119), which may have been influenced by the lower number of participants available at 1½ years. In their study with type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients in Australia, Petersen et al. were able to demonstrate a significant favourable effect of repeated counselling from a dietitian on mean and max ccIMT after 1 year (compared to usual diet)(35). Petersen et al. observed that mean ccIMT change was ~0⋅016 mm lower in the intervention group (compared to control)(35), whereas our study found that mean ccIMT was lower by 0⋅012 mm in the intervention group. While the dietary instructions given to the intervention group by Petersen et al. were to increase the intakes of fruit (not fruit juice), vegetables and dairy (milk or yoghurt, not cheese) and at 3 months increased intakes of fruit (+179 g/d), vegetables (+46 g/d) and yoghurt (+38 g/d) were observed (compared to control), these increases were not maintained at 1 year(35). In comparison, we observed increased intakes (1-year trajectories) of about half a food portion/day for fruit, vegetables, whole grains and legumes (equivalent to an increase of about 50–75 g/d each) as well as additional dietary changes (including a reduction in the intakes of meat, refined grains and sweets) in the intervention group (compared to control).

Our subgroup analyses confirm that significant effects on ccIMT may be more easily demonstrated in individuals with higher baseline ccIMT(21), and such higher ccIMT values are more likely to be present in study samples of individuals with confirmed CVD risk factors such as hypercholesterolaemia(31) or diabetes(23,35). Nevertheless, it is of high public health relevance to develop tools (such as our intervention programme) which already initiate CVD prevention measures in individuals who are still at low to moderate CVD risk(37). Consequently, it appears justifiable to conduct further lifestyle/dietary interventions assessing ccIMT change in generally healthy participants. It should also be considered that with participants at higher CVD risk a control group for which no effect (no intervention) or a lower effect can be expected may be ethically problematic(38). Like Petersen et al.(35) (and no other controlled lifestyle/dietary trial), our study showed a significant effect on mean ccIMT change after 1 year. At a follow-up of <1 year, significant favourable effects of lifestyle/dietary pattern modification on ccIMT change (compared to control) have only been shown in type 2 diabetes patients (after 6 months; South Korea)(26) as well as in our subgroup analysis at 6 months(17).

A cut-off value for mean ccIMT of 0⋅8 mm, as used in our study, has been widely utilised as a threshold for describing what constitutes elevated mean ccIMT values(39). It has furthermore been proposed that the age-, sex- and race-specific 75th percentile of mean ccIMT (derived from large cohort studies) should be used as a cut-off value(1,40). In our study population (evaluable participants; n 126), the 75th percentile of baseline mean ccIMT was 0⋅786 mm, which confirms the usefulness of 0⋅800 mm as a cut-off value in our study. Sensitivity analyses with a cut-off value of 0⋅790 mm confirmed the results.

Only a small number of controlled trials have tested the effect of exercise-only interventions on ccIMT(4146). One small study demonstrated a significant favourable effect of exercise training on ccIMT (compared to control)(41,43), and one other study observed a significant beneficial effect only in a subgroup analysis of patients without identified carotid plaques(42). The other studies did not demonstrate significant effects compared to control.

Age-related ccIMT increase is partly mediated by increased sympathetic nerve activity in vascular smooth muscle(47). Psychological stress is associated with increased sympathetic activity(48), blood pressure(49) and ccIMT(50), and this highlights the importance of psychological stress management as a component of healthy lifestyle recommendations(51,52). In the present study, we observed a significant reduction in body weight in the intervention group (compared to control). Weight loss is associated with decreased sympathetic activity(53) and decreased ccIMT(54), and in the present study a positive correlation was observed between changes in body weight and changes in max ccIMT (P = 0⋅020) and mean ccIMT (P = 0⋅066). However, in the high-baseline subgroup, changes in body weight did not significantly correlate with changes in mean ccIMT (P = 0⋅387) or max ccIMT (P = 0⋅640). Similarly, adjusting for body weight or BMI changes did not significantly influence the ANCOVA models (P > 0⋅69; unpublished results). This indicates that body weight reduction was not a main driver of the favourable effects on ccIMT which were observed in the subgroup.

Strengths and limitations

A strength of the present study is the use of a no-intervention control group, a strict standardised measurement protocol(1,19,55), several follow-up time points, high repeatability(39) and having all ccIMT measurements conducted by the same technician and with the same device(1,40).

Two relevant limitations are the non-randomised design and that the intervention study arm started 6 months earlier than the control group (same follow-up durations). While our findings in the subgroup with high baseline ccIMT seem robust, residual confounding may have remained, particularly since our trial was non-randomised and, as a community-based study, the study sample was non-homogeneous(12,56). However, baseline characteristics indicate that both study groups were comparable. Furthermore, seasonal changes may have influenced the results, for example by way of improved vitamin D status during the summer(57). However, in the subgroup, results of the 6-month(17), 1-year and 1½-year analyses consistently demonstrated lower mean and max ccIMT trajectories in the intervention group. This indicates that these results are not strongly confounded by seasonal effects. A further limitation is that the relatively small sample size did not allow for a complex statistical analysis of all potential confounders.

Conclusion

The results indicate that healthy lifestyle changes, as they were addressed in the Healthy Lifestyle Community Programme (cohort 2), can effectively reduce mean and max ccIMT if baseline ccIMT is above a value of 0⋅800 mm, indicating an elevated risk. The observed favourable effect of the intervention in participants with high baseline ccIMT likely constitutes a true deceleration of mean and max ccIMT progression. These results appear to be robust and are likely applicable to similar populations. Although in the present study most participants did not have elevated baseline ccIMT values, we still observed a significant and relevant beneficial intervention effect on ccIMT in the analysis including all participants. While the clinical benefit of the observed effect is likely greater in those with elevated ccIMT, it is equally an advantage to maintain normal ccIMT values within the normal range for as long as possible, if one takes ccIMT as a predictor of CVD risk. In the subgroup of individuals with low baseline ccIMT (<0⋅800 mm), lifestyle changes alone may not be sufficient or the lifestyle changes observed in the present study may not have been substantial enough to significantly improve ccIMT in the short term. As mean and max ccIMT are secondary end points, the results should be considered exploratory.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all participants as well as Alwine Kraatz who took part in the investigation, Norman Bitterlich for his help with statistical analysis, Dominik Zeljko for conducting the ccIMT measurements and Reinhold Gellner for his valuable contributions in the application process for ethical approval and his medical advice during the study.

This work was conducted as part of the project ‘münster.land.leben’ and was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the Joint Science Conference (GWK) within the programme ‘Innovative Hochschule’ (H.E., grant number: 03IHS062A). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation, writing of the report or the decision to publish the findings.

C. K.: conceptualisation, methodology, validation, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, visualisation, project administration; S. H.: conceptualisation, methodology, validation, investigation, data curation, writing – review and editing, project administration; R.-M. K.: conceptualisation, methodology, validation, investigation, data curation, writing – review and editing, project administration; C. A.: conceptualisation, methodology, validation, investigation, data curation, writing – review and editing, project administration; D. A.: investigation, data curation, writing – review and editing; N. S.: conceptualisation, methodology, investigation, data curation, writing – review and editing, project administration; A. H.: conceptualisation, methodology, formal analysis, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, supervision; H. E.: conceptualisation, methodology, investigation, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing, project administration, supervision, funding acquisition.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit https://doi.org/10.1017/jns.2022.46.

S2048679022000465sup001.pdf (24.5MB, pdf)

click here to view supplementary material

References

  • 1.Mitchell C, Korcarz CE, Zagzebski JA, et al. (2021) Effects of ultrasound technology advances on measurement of carotid intima-media thickness: a review. Vasc Med 26, 81–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Raggi P & Stein JH (2020) Carotid intima-media thickness should not be referred to as subclinical atherosclerosis: a recommended update to the editorial policy at Atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis 312, 119–120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Sirtori CR (2021) Carotid IMT and atherosclerosis: ‘Calling things by name’. Atherosclerosis 317, 67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Blekkenhorst LC, Lewis JR, Bondonno CP, et al. (2020) Vegetable diversity in relation with subclinical atherosclerosis and 15-year atherosclerotic vascular disease deaths in older adult women. Eur J Nutr 59, 217–230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Song P, Fang Z, Wang H, et al. (2020) Global and regional prevalence, burden, and risk factors for carotid atherosclerosis: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and modelling study. Lancet Glob Health 8, e721–e729. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shah PK (2020) Does reduced carotid intima media thickness progression predict cardiovascular risk reduction? Circulation 142, 643–644. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Suzuki T, Wang W, Wilsdon A, et al. (2020) Carotid intima-media thickness and the risk of sudden cardiac death: the ARIC study and the CHS. J Am Heart Assoc 9, e016981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kumar P, Sharma R, Misra S, et al. (2020) CIMT as a risk factor for stroke subtype: a systematic review. Eur J Clin Invest 50, e13348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gałąska R, Kulawiak-Gałąska D, Chmara M, et al. (2021) Carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in patients with severe familial and non-familial hypercholesterolemia: the effect of measurement site on the IMT correlation with traditional cardiovascular risk factors and calcium scores. Cardiol J 28, 271–278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Qian C, Sun Y & Jiang J (2021) Diagnostic values of epicardial adipose tissue thickness with right common carotid artery elasticity and intima-media thickness for middle-aged and elderly patients with coronary heart disease. Int J Gen Med 14, 633–639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Katakami N, Matsuoka T-A & Shimomura I (2019) Clinical utility of carotid ultrasonography: application for the management of patients with diabetes. J Diabetes Investig 10, 883–898. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Willeit P, Tschiderer L, Allara E, et al. (2020) Carotid intima-media thickness progression as surrogate marker for cardiovascular risk: meta-analysis of 119 clinical trials involving 100 667 patients. Circulation 142, 621–642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yang C-F, Lin T-J, Liu C-H, et al. (2020) Eating right for a healthier heart: food choice contributes to cardiometabolic benefits and reduction of carotid intima-media thickness. Nutrition 78, 110892. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bhat S, Mocciaro G & Ray S (2019) The association of dietary patterns and carotid intima-media thickness: a synthesis of current evidence. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 29, 1273–1287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zuo L-S-Y, Tang X-Y, Xiong F, et al. (2021) Isoflavone biomarkers are inversely associated with atherosclerosis progression in adults: a prospective study. Am J Clin Nutr 114, 203–213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Koeder C, Kranz R-M, Anand C, et al. (2021) Effect of a 1-year controlled lifestyle intervention on body weight and other risk markers (the Healthy Lifestyle Community Programme, cohort 2). Obes Facts 15, 228–239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Koeder C, Hahn A & Englert H (2021) Effect of a 6-month controlled lifestyle intervention on common carotid intima-media thickness. J Nutr Health Aging 25, 869–877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Satija A, Bhupathiraju SN, Spiegelman D, et al. (2017) Healthful and unhealthful plant-based diets and the risk of coronary heart disease in U.S. adults. J Am Coll Cardiol 70, 411–422. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Touboul P-J, Hennerici MG, Meairs S, et al. (2012) Mannheim carotid intima-media thickness and plaque consensus (2004-2006-2011). An update on behalf of the advisory board of the 3rd, 4th and 5th watching the risk symposia, at the 13th, 15th and 20th European Stroke Conferences, Mannheim, Germany, 2004, Brussels, Belgium, 2006, and Hamburg, Germany, 2011. Cerebrovasc Dis 34, 290–296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jimenez-Torres J, Alcalá-Diaz JF, Torres-Peña JD, et al. (2021) Mediterranean diet reduces atherosclerosis progression in coronary heart disease: an analysis of the CORDIOPREV randomized controlled trial. Stroke 52, 3440–3449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Murie-Fernandez M, Irimia P, Toledo E, et al. (2011) Carotid intima-media thickness changes with Mediterranean diet: a randomized trial (PREDIMED-Navarra). Atherosclerosis 219, 158–162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Agewall S, Fagerberg B, Berglund G, et al. (2001) Multiple risk intervention trial in high risk hypertensive men: comparison of ultrasound intima-media thickness and clinical outcome during 6 years of follow-up. J Intern Med 249, 305–314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Maiorino MI, Bellastella G, Petrizzo M, et al. (2017) Effect of a Mediterranean diet on endothelial progenitor cells and carotid intima-media thickness in type 2 diabetes: follow-up of a randomized trial. Eur J Prev Cardiol 24, 399–408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Vamvakis A, Gkaliagkousi E, Lazaridis A, et al. (2020) Impact of intensive lifestyle treatment (diet plus exercise) on endothelial and vascular function, arterial stiffness and blood pressure in stage 1 hypertension: results of the HINTreat randomized controlled trial. Nutrients 12, 5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Aldana SG, Greenlaw R, Salberg A, et al. (2007) The effects of an intensive lifestyle modification program on carotid artery intima-media thickness: a randomized trial. Am J Health Promot 21, 510–516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kim SH, Lee SJ, Kang ES, et al. (2006) Effects of lifestyle modification on metabolic parameters and carotid intima-media thickness in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metabolism 55, 1053–1059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Okada K, Maeda N, Tatsukawa M, et al. (2004) The influence of lifestyle modification on carotid artery intima-media thickness in a suburban Japanese population. Atherosclerosis 173, 329–337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wildman RP, Schott LL, Brockwell S, et al. (2004) A dietary and exercise intervention slows menopause-associated progression of subclinical atherosclerosis as measured by intima-media thickness of the carotid arteries. J Am Coll Cardiol 44, 579–585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.de Souza RJ, Dehghan M, Mente A, et al. (2020) Association of nut intake with risk factors, cardiovascular disease, and mortality in 16 countries from 5 continents: analysis from the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. Am J Clin Nutr 112, 208–219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sala-Vila A, Romero-Mamani E-S, Gilabert R, et al. (2014) Changes in ultrasound-assessed carotid intima-media thickness and plaque with a Mediterranean diet: a substudy of the PREDIMED trial. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 34, 439–445. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ellingsen I, Seljeflot I, Arnesen H, et al. (2009) Vitamin C consumption is associated with less progression in carotid intima media thickness in elderly men: a 3-year intervention study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 19, 8–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hjerkinn EM, Abdelnoor M, Breivik L, et al. (2006) Effect of diet or very long chain omega-3 fatty acids on progression of atherosclerosis, evaluated by carotid plaques, intima-media thickness and by pulse wave propagation in elderly men with hypercholesterolaemia. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 13, 325–333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bhanpuri NH, Hallberg SJ, Williams PT, et al. (2018) Cardiovascular disease risk factor responses to a type 2 diabetes care model including nutritional ketosis induced by sustained carbohydrate restriction at 1 year: an open label, non-randomized, controlled study. Cardiovasc Diabetol 17, 56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Chen C-Y, Huang W-S, Chen H-C, et al. (2020) Effect of a 90 g/day low-carbohydrate diet on glycaemic control, small, dense low-density lipoprotein and carotid intima-media thickness in type 2 diabetic patients: an 18-month randomised controlled trial. PLoS One 15, e0240158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Petersen KS, Clifton PM, Blanch N, et al. (2015) Effect of improving dietary quality on carotid intima media thickness in subjects with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a 12-mo randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr 102, 771–779. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Julibert A, Del Bibiloni MM & Tur JA (2019) Dietary fat intake and metabolic syndrome in adults: a systematic review. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 29, 887–905. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Nieto-Martínez R, González-Rivas JP & Mechanick JI (2021) Cardiometabolic risk: new chronic care models. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 45, 85–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Morain SR (2019) Ostriches and obligations: ethical challenges facing research on usual care. Hastings Cent Rep 49, 28–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Connors K, Flores-Torres MH, Stern D, et al. (2020) Family member incarceration, psychological stress, and subclinical cardiovascular disease in Mexican women (2012–2016). Am J Public Health 110, S71–S77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Müller-Scholden L, Kirchhof J, Morbach C, et al. (2019) Segment-specific association of carotid-intima-media thickness with cardiovascular risk factors – findings from the STAAB cohort study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 19, 84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hetherington-Rauth M, Magalhães JP, Júdice PB, et al. (2020) Vascular improvements in individuals with type 2 diabetes following a 1 year randomised controlled exercise intervention, irrespective of changes in cardiorespiratory fitness. Diabetologia 63, 722–732. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Byrkjeland R, Stensæth K-H, Anderssen S, et al. (2016) Effects of exercise training on carotid intima-media thickness in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. Influence of carotid plaques. Cardiovasc Diabetol 15, 13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Magalhães JP, Melo X, Correia IR, et al. (2019) Effects of combined training with different intensities on vascular health in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 1-year randomized controlled trial. Cardiovasc Diabetol 18, 34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Glodzik J, Rewiuk K, Adamiak J, et al. (2018) Controlled aerobic training improves endothelial function and modifies vascular remodeling in healthy adults with high normal blood pressure. J Physiol Pharmacol 69, 5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Lee K, Kang I, Mack WJ, et al. (2019) Effects of high-intensity interval training on vascular endothelial function and vascular wall thickness in breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy: a randomized pilot study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 177, 477–485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Farahati S, Hosseini SRA, Moazzami M, et al. (2020) The impact of high-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training on carotid intima-media thickness and ankle-brachial index in middle-aged women. Int J Prev Med 11, 62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Holwerda SW, Luehrs RE, DuBose LE, et al. (2019) Sex and age differences in the association between sympathetic outflow and central elastic artery wall thickness in humans. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 317, H552–H560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Holwerda SW, Luehrs RE, Gremaud AL, et al. (2018) Relative burst amplitude of muscle sympathetic nerve activity is an indicator of altered sympathetic outflow in chronic anxiety. J Neurophysiol 120, 11–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Liu M-Y, Li N, Li WA, et al. (2017) Association between psychosocial stress and hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurol Res 39, 573–580. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Wiernik E, Lemogne C, Thomas F, et al. (2016) Perceived stress, common carotid intima media thickness and occupational status: the Paris Prospective Study III. Int J Cardiol 221, 1025–1030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Conversano C, Orrù G, Pozza A, et al. (2021) Is mindfulness-based stress reduction effective for people with hypertension? A systematic review and meta-analysis of 30 years of evidence. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18, 6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Stier-Jarmer M, Throner V, Kirschneck M, et al. (2021) The psychological and physical effects of forests on human health: a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18, 4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Costa J, Moreira A, Moreira P, et al. (2019) Effects of weight changes in the autonomic nervous system: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nutr 38, 110–126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Altin C, Erol V, Aydin E, et al. (2018) Impact of weight loss on epicardial fat and carotid intima media thickness after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a prospective study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 28, 501–509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Frigerio B, Werba JP, Amato M, et al. (2020) Traditional risk factors are causally related to carotid intima-media thickness progression: inferences from observational cohort studies and interventional trials. Curr Pharm Des 26, 11–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Welch RW, Antoine J-M, Berta J-L, et al. (2011) Guidelines for the design, conduct and reporting of human intervention studies to evaluate the health benefits of foods. Br J Nutr 106, S3–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Säidifard N, Tangestani H, Djafarian K, et al. (2020) Serum vitamin D level and carotid intima-media thickness: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized control trials. Horm Metab Res 52, 305–315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit https://doi.org/10.1017/jns.2022.46.

S2048679022000465sup001.pdf (24.5MB, pdf)

click here to view supplementary material


Articles from Journal of Nutritional Science are provided here courtesy of Cambridge University Press

RESOURCES