4.1 Article

Comparison of plaque morphology between peripheral and coronary artery disease (from the CLARITY and ADAPT-DES IVUS substudies)

期刊

CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 369-375

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCA.0000000000000469

关键词

atherectomy; calcium; coronary artery disease; intravascular ultrasound; peripheral artery disease

资金

  1. Volcano
  2. Boston Scientific
  3. InfraReDx
  4. St Jude Medical

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The aim of this study was to help understand the different outcomes when treating peripheral arterial disease (PAD) versus coronary artery disease (CAD). We compared plaque morphology between PAD and CAD using intravascular ultrasound. Methods Complete Lesion Assessment with ffR and IVUS TechnologY (CLARITY) was a prospective, multicenter trial that enrolled 50 PAD patients with a lower extremity wound fed by a tibial or a peroneal artery with diameter stenosis more than 50%. Assessment of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy With Drug Eluting Stents (ADAPT-DES) was a prospective, multicenter, registry that enrolled 8582 CAD patients. We compared preintervention intravascular ultrasound findings in 42 PAD lesions from CLARITY versus 79 matched CAD lesions from ADAPT-DES. Results Compared with CAD lesions, PAD lesions had (i) smaller mean vessel, plaque, and lumen volumes; (ii) twice the lesion length; (iii) greater maximum superficial calcium arc and plaque eccentricity (i.e. there was more concentric plaque) measured at the minimum lumen area site; (iv) calcium arc and plaque eccentricity were positively correlated to plaque burden in both PAD and CAD lesions; and (v) calcium arc and the presence of concentric plaque were greater in PAD compared with CAD independent of the degree of plaque burden. Conclusion Compared with CAD lesions, PAD lesions in a tibial or a peroneal artery were longer; had more concentric, diffuse, and calcified plaque; and had smaller vessel volumes. Copyright (C) 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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