Growing evidence indicates that myocardial infarction (MI) is the clinical manifestation of heterogeneous plaque substrates with distinct molecular, cellular, and biomechanical mechanisms. Acute coronary thrombosis (ACT) most commonly arises from plaque rupture (PR), plaque erosion (PE), and calcified nodules (CNs), each associated with different inflammatory profiles, thrombus composition, clinical presentation, and prognosis. This comprehensive review provides a clinician-oriented synthesis of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying these three principal plaque phenotypes and discusses their implications for the contemporary management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). We examine the molecular and cellular determinants of plaque instability and highlight how systemic factors such as plaque burden, impaired healing responses, and myocardial jeopardy modulate clinical risk. The role of intracoronary and non-invasive imaging is discussed primarily as a tool to elucidate plaque biology with direct clinical relevance rather than merely as a procedural guide. Building on these insights, we propose a conceptual framework for integrating plaque biology into clinical decision-making across the acute phase, secondary prevention, and long-term follow-up. In particular, recognizing the biological heterogeneity of plaque substrates may support more personalized therapeutic strategies, enabling clinicians to tailor pharmacological and interventional approaches according to the underlying plaque phenotype and patient-specific risk profile. Finally, we briefly address emerging perspectives, including the potential role of artificial intelligence (AI) in refining plaque characterization, risk stratification, and precision cardiovascular prevention. Overall, recognition of PR, PE, and CNs as biologically distinct entities supports a shift toward mechanism-informed and personalized management of MI, aligning advances in plaque biology with the principles of precision cardiovascular medicine.
Pala et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: