4.8 Article

Stenting of culprit lesions in unstable angina leads to a marked reduction in plaque burden: A major role of plaque embolization? A serial intravascular ultrasound study

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 107, 期 18, 页码 2320-2325

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000066695.24697.07

关键词

ultrasonics; stents; angioplasty

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) studies have shown that a mechanism of plaque compression/embolization contributes toward the poststenting increase in lumen area. The aim of this IVUS study was to compare the mechanisms of lumen enlargement after coronary stenting in 54 consecutive patients with unstable angina (UA) (group 1) and 56 with stable angina (group 2) to verify whether plaque embolization plays a major role in the former. Methods and Results-Both groups underwent the IVUS assessment (speed, 0.5 mm/sec) before the intervention and after stent implantation. The lumen area, the external elastic membrane area, and the plaque + media area (PA) were measured at 0.5-mm intervals. PA reduction in the lesion site was significantly greater in group 1 (-2.50 +/- 1.97 versus -0.53 +/- 1.43 mm(2), P<0.001). After stenting, 47% of the lumen area increase in group 1 was obtained by means of PA reduction, and 53% was attributable to external elastic membrane area increase; the corresponding figures in group 2 were 13% and 87% (P<0.05). Decrease in PA after stenting was the only significant predictor of the MB fraction of creatinine kinase (CK-MB) release in a multiple regression model (P=0.047). Conclusions-Serial volumetric IVUS assessment revealed in UA lesions a marked poststenting reduction in plaque volume, which is significantly greater than in stable angina and is associated with postprocedural CK-MB release. The decrease in PA during the procedure predicts CK-MB release in a multiple regression model. These findings suggest that stent deployment is often associated with plaque embolization in patients with UA.

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

4.8
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