Key result
End-diastolic IVUS shows comparable PAV regression to conventional 1-mm segmentation.
Why the study?
To compare changes in percentage atheroma volume using an end-diastolic IVUS segmentation approach versus conventional 1-mm interval analysis in serial IVUS data.
Does end-diastolic IVUS segmentation compared to conventional 1-mm segmentation yield different estimates of atheroma burden changes in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Observational (n=240)
Blinded
Yes
Does end-diastolic IVUS segmentation compared to conventional 1-mm segmentation yield different estimates of atheroma burden changes in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Absolute Event Rate: -1.25% vs -1.29%
p-value: p=0.911
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Supports conventional 1-mm IVUS segmentation in serial studies; confirms comparable alirocumab effects on plaque regression versus end-diastolic method.
BACKGROUND: This study compared changes in percentage atheroma volume (PAV) using an end-diastolic (ED) intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) segmentation approach vs. the conventional 1-mm interval analysis in serial IVUS data from the PACMAN-AMI trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: , respectively [P=0.823]; PAV: 1.29% vs. 1.25%, respectively [P=0.911]). Biomarker correlations with TAV and PAV changes did not differ between approaches. CONCLUSIONS: ED- and 1-mm-based analyses demonstrated comparable treatment effects of alirocumab on plaque regression in PACMAN-AMI. These findings support the use of the less time-consuming 1-mm segmentation method in serial IVUS studies.
Yap et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Acute myocardial infarction (n=240). End-diastolic (ED) IVUS segmentation vs. Conventional 1-mm IVUS segmentation was evaluated on Difference in treatment effect of alirocumab on percentage atheroma volume (PAV) change (p=0.911). End-diastolic and conventional 1-mm IVUS segmentation approaches demonstrated comparable treatment effects of alirocumab on percentage atheroma volume regression (-1.25% vs. -1.29%, p=0.911).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: