4.4 Article

In vivo comparison of optical coherence tomography and angioscopy for the evaluation of coronary plaque characteristics

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 101, Issue 4, Pages 471-476

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.09.106

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Atherosclerotic yellow plaques identified by coronary angioscopy are considered as vulnerable plaques. However, characteristics of yellow plaques are not well understood. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) provides accurate tissue characterization in vivo and has the capability to measure fibrous cap thickness covering a lipid plaque. Characteristics of yellow plaques identified by angioscopy were evaluated by OCT. We examined 205 plaques of 41 coronary arteries in 26 patients. In OCT analysis, plaques were classified as fibrous or lipid. Minimal lumen area of the Plaque, arch of the lipid, and fibrous cap thickness on the lipid plaque were measured. Yellow grade of the plaque was defined as 0 (white), 1 (light yellow), 2 (medium yellow), or 3 (dark yellow) based on the angioscopy. A total of 149 plaques were diagnosed as lipid plaques. Neither the minimal lumen area nor the arch of the lipid was related to the yellow grade. There was an inverse relationship between color grade and the fibrous cap thickness (grade 0 [n = 45] 218 +/- 89 mu m, grade 1 [n = 40] 101 +/- 8 mu m, grade 2 in = 46] 72 +/- 10 mu m, and grade 3 [n = 18] 40 +/- 14 mu m; p <0.05). Sensitivity and specificity of the angioscopy-identified yellow plaque for having a thin fibrous cap (thickness <= 110 mu m) were 98% and 96%, respectively. In conclusion, angioscopy-identified yellow plaques frequently, were lipid tissue with an overlying thin fibrous cap. Fibrous caps of the intense yellow plaques were very thin, and these plaques might be structurally. vulnerable. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available