4.6 Article

Histopathological correlates of the napkin-ring sign plaque in coronary CT angiography

期刊

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
卷 224, 期 1, 页码 90-96

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2012.06.021

关键词

Coronary CT angiography; Vulnerable plaque; Atherosclerosis; Angiogenesis; Calcification

资金

  1. GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [DFG Se 2029/1-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify histologic characteristics of advanced coronary atherosclerotic plaques that are related with the detection of the napkin-ring sign (NRS) in coronary CT angiography (CCTA). Methods: CCTA was performed in 7 human donor hearts. Histological slicing and stainings were performed in 1 mm increments of each major coronary artery. Histology was co-registered with the CT-data and classified according to the modified AHA classification. Results: Advanced plaques (types IV-VI) were present in 139 (23%) of 611 cross sections. Of these 33 (24%) demonstrated an NRS in CCTA. NRS plaques were associated with greater non-core plaque area (median 10.2 vs. 6.4 mm(2), p < 0.01) and larger vessel area (median 17.1 vs. 13.0 mm(2), p < 0.01). The area of the necrotic/lipid core was larger in plaques with NRS (median 1.1 vs. 0.5 mm(2), p = 0.05). Angiogenesis tended to be more frequent in plaques with NRS (48% vs. 30%) whereas micro-calcifications tended to be more frequent in plaques without NRS (27% vs. 46%) (p = 0.06 and 0.07 respectively). In a multivariate analysis, necrotic/lipid core area (OR = 1.9), non-core plaque area (OR = 1.6), and total vessel area (OR = 0.9) independently predicted the appearance of the NRS in coronary CT angiography. Conclusion: Delineation of NRS in CCTA is independently linked to the size of the necrotic/lipid core, the size of the non-core plaque and to the vessel area as measured in histology of advanced coronary atherosclerotic plaques. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.6
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