Key result
Plaque erosion presents as STEMI ~51% less often than plaque rupture and features negative remodeling.
Why the study?
Does multimodality intravascular imaging with OCT and VH-IVUS show different pathoanatomic substrates between plaque erosion and plaque rupture in patients with acute coronary syndrome?
Observational (n=133)
Blinded core laboratory
Yes
Does multimodality intravascular imaging with OCT and VH-IVUS show different pathoanatomic substrates between plaque erosion and plaque rupture in patients with acute coronary syndrome?
Absolute Event Rate: 35% vs 71%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Multimodality intravascular imaging reveals that plaque erosion is characterized by modest plaque burden, negative remodeling, and white thrombus, distinguishing it fundamentally from plaque rupture in patients with acute coronary syndrome.
May inform nuanced ACS evaluation; leaves open whether imaging differentiation alters outcomes or therapies.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We assessed plaque erosion of culprit lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome in real world practice. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Culprit lesion plaque rupture or plaque erosion was diagnosed with optical coherence tomography (OCT). Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) was used to determine arterial remodeling. Positive remodeling was defined as a remodeling index (lesion/reference EEM [external elastic membrane area) >1.05. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients who had plaque rupture showing fibrous-cap discontinuity and ruptured cavity were enrolled. 36 patients showed definite OCT-plaque erosion, while 7 patients had probable OCT-plaque erosion. Overall, 26% (11/43) of definite/probable plaque erosion had non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) while 35% (15/43) had ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Conversely, 14.5% (13/90) of plaque rupture had NSTEMI while 71% (64/90) had STEMI (p<0.0001). Among plaque erosion, white thrombus was seen in 55.8% (24/43) of patients and red thrombus in 27.9% (12/43) of patients. Compared to plaque erosion, plaque rupture more often showed positive remodeling (p=0.003) with a larger necrotic core area examined by virtual histology (VH)-IVUS, while negative remodeling was prominent in plaque erosion. Overall, 65% 28/43 of plaque erosions were located in the proximal 30 mm of a culprit vessel-similar to plaque ruptures (72%, 65/90, p=0.29). CONCLUSION: Although most of plaque erosions show nearly normal coronary angiogram, modest plaque burden with negative remodeling and an uncommon fibroatheroma might be the nature of plaque erosion. Multimodality intravascular imaging with OCT and VH-IVUS showed fundamentally different pathoanatomic substrates underlying plaque rupture and erosion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kwon et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Acute Coronary Syndrome (n=133). Plaque erosion vs. Plaque rupture was evaluated on Presentation with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (p=<0.0001). In patients with acute coronary syndrome, plaque erosion was significantly less likely to present as STEMI compared to plaque rupture (35% vs 71%, p<0.0001) and was characterized by negative arterial remodeling.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: