BACKGROUND: Inflammation and neovascularization may play a significant role in atherosclerotic plaque progression and rupture. We evaluated gadofluorine-M-enhanced MRI for detection of plaque inflammation and neovascularization in an animal model of atherosclerosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixteen rabbits with aortic plaque and 6 normal control rabbits underwent gadofluorine-M-enhanced MRI. Eight rabbits had advanced atherosclerotic lesions, whereas the remaining 8 had early lesions. Magnetic resonance atherosclerotic plaque enhancement was meticulously compared with plaque inflammation and neovessel density as assessed by histopathology. Advanced plaques and early atheroma were enhanced after gadofluorine-M injection. Control animals displayed no enhancement. After accounting for the within-animal correlation of observations, mean contrast-to-noise ratio was significantly higher in advanced plaques than compared with early atheroma (4.29+/-0.21 versus 3.00+/-0.32; P=0.004). Macrophage density was higher in advanced plaques in comparison to early atheroma (geometric mean=0.50 [95% CI, 0.19 to 1.03] versus 0.25 [0.07 to 0.42]; P=0.05). Furthermore, higher neovessel density was observed in advanced plaques (1.83 [95% CI, 1.51 to 2.21] versus 1.29 [0.99 to 1.69]; P=0.05). The plaque accumulation of gadofluorine-M correlated with increased neovessel density as shown by linear regression analysis (r=0.67; P<0.001). Confocal and fluorescence microscopy revealed colocalization of gadofluorine-M with plaque areas containing a high density of neovessels. CONCLUSIONS: Gadofluorine-M-enhanced MRI is effective for in vivo detection of atherosclerotic plaque inflammation and neovascularization in an animal model of atherosclerosis. These findings suggest that gadofluorine-M enhancement reflects the presence of high-risk plaque features believed to be associated with plaque rupture. Gadofluorine-M plaque enhancement may therefore provide functional assessment of atherosclerotic plaque in vivo.
BACKGROUND:Inflammation and neovascularization may play a significant role in atherosclerotic plaque progression and rupture. We evaluated gadofluorine-M-enhanced MRI for detection of plaque inflammation and neovascularization in an animal model of atherosclerosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixteen rabbits with aortic plaque and 6 normal control rabbits underwent gadofluorine-M-enhanced MRI. Eight rabbits had advanced atherosclerotic lesions, whereas the remaining 8 had early lesions. Magnetic resonance atherosclerotic plaque enhancement was meticulously compared with plaque inflammation and neovessel density as assessed by histopathology. Advanced plaques and early atheroma were enhanced after gadofluorine-M injection. Control animals displayed no enhancement. After accounting for the within-animal correlation of observations, mean contrast-to-noise ratio was significantly higher in advanced plaques than compared with early atheroma (4.29+/-0.21 versus 3.00+/-0.32; P=0.004). Macrophage density was higher in advanced plaques in comparison to early atheroma (geometric mean=0.50 [95% CI, 0.19 to 1.03] versus 0.25 [0.07 to 0.42]; P=0.05). Furthermore, higher neovessel density was observed in advanced plaques (1.83 [95% CI, 1.51 to 2.21] versus 1.29 [0.99 to 1.69]; P=0.05). The plaque accumulation of gadofluorine-M correlated with increased neovessel density as shown by linear regression analysis (r=0.67; P<0.001). Confocal and fluorescence microscopy revealed colocalization of gadofluorine-M with plaque areas containing a high density of neovessels. CONCLUSIONS:Gadofluorine-M-enhanced MRI is effective for in vivo detection of atherosclerotic plaque inflammation and neovascularization in an animal model of atherosclerosis. These findings suggest that gadofluorine-M enhancement reflects the presence of high-risk plaque features believed to be associated with plaque rupture. Gadofluorine-M plaque enhancement may therefore provide functional assessment of atherosclerotic plaque in vivo.
Authors: Vardan Amirbekian; Michael J Lipinski; Karen C Briley-Saebo; Smbat Amirbekian; Juan Gilberto S Aguinaldo; David B Weinreb; Esad Vucic; Juan C Frias; Fabien Hyafil; Venkatesh Mani; Edward A Fisher; Zahi A Fayad Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-01-10 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Bruce A Wasserman; William I Smith; Hugh H Trout; Richard O Cannon; Robert S Balaban; Andrew E Arai Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Valentin Fuster; Pedro R Moreno; Zahi A Fayad; Roberto Corti; Juan J Badimon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-09-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael Fleiner; Marco Kummer; Martina Mirlacher; Guido Sauter; Gieri Cathomas; Reto Krapf; Barbara C Biedermann Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-10-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: William Kerwin; Andrew Hooker; Mary Spilker; Paolo Vicini; Marina Ferguson; Thomas Hatsukami; Chun Yuan Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-02-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Mark M Kockx; Kristel M Cromheeke; Michiel W M Knaapen; Johan M Bosmans; Guido R Y De Meyer; Arnold G Herman; Hidde Bult Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2003-01-23 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Dominik Nörenberg; Hans U Ebersberger; Gerd Diederichs; Bernd Hamm; René M Botnar; Marcus R Makowski Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Yvonne Y Bender; Andreas Pfeifer; Hans U Ebersberger; Gerd Diederichs; Peter Hoppe; Bernd Hamm; René M Botnar; Marcus R Makowski Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 2.931