4.5 Article

Optical Coherence Tomography Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Among Plaque Rupture, Erosion, and Calcified Nodule in Acute Myocardial Infarction

Journal

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
Volume 84, Issue 6, Pages 911-916

Publisher

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-20-0014

Keywords

Calcified nodule; Optical coherence tomography; Plaque erosion; Plaque rupture; Stent

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is caused by coronary plaque rupture (PR), plaque erosion (PE), or calcified nodule (CN). We used optical coherence tomography (OCT) to compare stent expansion immediately after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with AMI caused by PR, PE, or CN. Methods and Results: In all, 288 AMI patients were assessed by OCT before and immediately after PCI, performed with OCT guidance according to OPINION criteria for stent sizing and optimization. The frequency of OCT-identified PR (OCT-PR), OCT-PE, and OCT-CN was 172 (60%), 82 (28%), and 34 (12%), respectively. Minimum stent area was smallest in the OCT-CN group, followed by the OCT-PE and OCT-PR groups (mean [+/- SD] 5.20 +/- 1.77, 5.44 +/- 1.78, and 6.44 +/- 2.2 mm(2), respectively; P<0.001), as was the stent expansion index (76 +/- 13%, 86 +/- 14%, and 87 +/- 16%, respectively; P=0.001). The frequency of stent malapposition was highest in the OCT-CN group, followed by the OCT-PR and OCT-PE groups (71%, 38%, and 27%, respectively; P<0.001), as was the frequency of stent edge dissection in the proximal reference (44%, 23%, and 10%, respectively; P<0.001). The frequency of tissue protrusion was highest in the OCT-PR group, followed by the OCT-PE and OCT-CN groups (95%, 88%, and 85%, respectively; P=0.036). Conclusions: Stent expansion was smallest in the OCT-CN group, followed by the OCT-PR and OCT-PE groups. Plaque morphology in AMI culprit lesions may affect stent expansion immediately after primary PCI.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available