4.5 Review

Changing Views of the Biomechanics of Vulnerable Plaque Rupture: A Review

Journal

ANNALS OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 42, Issue 2, Pages 415-431

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10439-013-0855-x

Keywords

Human atheroma; Biomechanics of rupture; Vulnerable plaque; Fibrous cap; Microcalcification hypothesis

Funding

  1. NIH ARRA [RCI HL101151, AG034198]
  2. NSF [MRI 0723027, 1229449]
  3. PSC CUNY award
  4. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  5. Directorate For Engineering [1229449] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review examines changing perspectives on the biomechanics of vulnerable plaque rupture over the past 25 years from the first finite element analyses (FEA) showing that the presence of a lipid pool significantly increases the local tissue stress in the atheroma cap to the latest imaging and 3D FEA studies revealing numerous microcalcifications in the cap proper and a new paradigm for cap rupture. The first part of the review summarizes studies describing the role of the fibrous cap thickness, tissue properties, and lesion geometry as main determinants of the risk of rupture. Advantages and limitations of current imaging technologies for assessment of vulnerable plaques are also discussed. However, the basic paradoxes as to why ruptures frequently did not coincide with location of PCS and why caps > 65 mu m thickness could rupture at tissue stresses significantly below the 300 kPa critical threshold still remained unresolved. The second part of the review describes recent studies in the role of microcalcifications, their origin, shape, and clustering in explaining these unresolved issues including the actual mechanism of rupture due to the explosive growth of tiny voids (cavitation) in local regions of high stress concentration between closely spaced microinclusions oriented along their tensile axis.

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