4.7 Article

Plaque Characterization by Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography and the Likelihood of Acute Coronary Events in Mid-Term Follow-Up

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.05.069

关键词

acute coronary syndrome; atherosclerosis; coronary artery disease

资金

  1. Philips
  2. GE Healthcare

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA)-verified positive remodeling and low attenuation plaques are considered morphological characteristics of high-risk plaque (HRP) and predict short-term risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). OBJECTIVES This study evaluated whether plaque characteristics by CTA predict mid-term likelihood of ACS. METHODS The presence of HRP and significant stenosis (SS) of >= 70% were evaluated in 3,158 patients undergoing CTA. Serial CTA was performed in 449 patients, and plaque progression (PP) was evaluated. Outcomes (fatal and nonfatal ACS) were recorded during follow-up (mean 3.9 +/- 2.4 years). RESULTS ACS occurred in 88 (2.8%) patients: 48 (16.3%) of 294 HRP(+) and 40 (1.4%) of 2,864 HRP(-) patients. ACS was also significantly more frequent in SS(+) (36 of 659; 5.5%) than SS(-) patients (52 of 2,499; 2.1%). HRP(+)/SS(+) (19%) and HRP(+)/SS(-) (15%) had higher rates of ACS compared with no-plaque patients (0.6%). Although ACS incidence was relatively low in HRP(-) patients, the cumulative number of patients with ACS developing from HRP(-) lesions (n = 43) was similar to ACS patients with HRP(+) lesions (n = 45). In patients with serial CTA, PP also was an independent predictor of ACS, with HRP (27%; p < 0.0001) and without HRP (10%) compared with HRP(-)/PP(-) patients (0.3%). CONCLUSIONS CTA-verified HRP was an independent predictor of ACS. However, the cumulative number of ACS patients with HRP(-) was similar to patients with HRP(+). Additionally, plaque progression detected by serial CTA was an independent predictor of ACS. (C) 2015 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

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