4.7 Article

Presence of vulnerable coronary plaques in middle-aged individuals who suffered a brain death

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 30, 期 23, 页码 2845-2853

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehp303

关键词

Atherosclerosis; Coronary disease; Stroke; Transplantation

资金

  1. Fundacion Favaloro [N 246 / 07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Vulnerable plaques in coronary arteries are frequently found in individuals who died suddenly or due to an acute coronary syndrome. The prevalence and characteristics of these plaques in the middle-aged apparently healthy population are unknown. Methods and results From a total of 652 hearts from transplant donors collected between 1996 and 2007, we selected those from apparently healthy individuals older than 40 years old who died of head trauma or stroke and had no evidence of prior vascular diseases. The coronary arteries were examined by serial sectioning at 3 mm intervals, and all areas of cross-sectional luminal narrowing were processed for histological, immunohistochemical, and morphometric studies. The atherosclerotic plaques were classified according to the American Heart Association Report. A total of 160 hearts were examined. Mean age was 50.3 +/- 5.8 years. Sixty-eight hearts had no advanced coronary atherosclerotic lesions (Type I, II, and III of the American Heart classification). In the remaining 92 hearts, we found 179 plaques considered high-risk lesions (American Heart Association Type IV, V, and VI). These plaques were more frequently found in mates (P < 0.001) and in those with a higher heart weight (P < 0.001). The median (25th and 75th percentiles) vascular narrowing value using a planimetric analysis was 32% (21-53). No significant association with the cause of death was found (P = 0.09). Conclusion High-risk coronary artery plaques not associated with significant vascular lumen reduction exist in 57% of patients who suffered a brain death with a mean of 1.11 lesions prone to rupture per individual.

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

4.7
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