4.6 Article

Clinical and Laboratory Predictors for Plaque Erosion in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.119.012322

关键词

acute coronary syndrome; optical coherence tomography; plaque erosion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Plaque erosion is responsible for 25% to 40% of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Recent studies suggest that anti-thrombotic therapy without stenting may be an option for this subset of patients. Currently, however, an invasive procedure is required to make a diagnosis of plaque erosion. The aim of this study was to identify clinical or laboratory predictors of plaque erosion in patients with ACS to enable a diagnosis of erosion without additional invasive procedures. Methods and Results-Patients with ACS who underwent optical coherence tomography imaging were selected from 11 institutions in 6 countries. The patients were classified into plaque rupture, plaque erosion, or calcified plaque, and predictors were identified using multivariable logistic modeling. Among 1241 patients with ACS, 477 (38.4%) patients were found to have plaque erosion. Plaque erosion was more frequent in non-ST-segment elevation-ACS than in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (47.9% versus 29.8%, P=0.0002). Multivariable logistic regression models showed 5 independent parameters associated with plaque erosion: age <68 years, anterior ischemia, no diabetes mellitus, hemoglobin >15.0 g/dL, and normal renal function. When all 5 parameters are present in a patient with non-ST-segment elevation-ACS, the probability of plaque erosion increased to 73.1%. Conclusions-Clinical and laboratory parameters associated with plaque erosion are explored in this retrospective registry study. These parameters may be useful to identify the subset of ACS patients with plaque erosion and guide them to conservative management without invasive procedures. The results of this exploratory analysis need to be confirmed in large scale prospective clinical studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据