| Literature DB >> 28441929 |
Sylvia Otto1, Kristina Nitsche2, Christian Jung3, Aleh Kryvanos4, Andrey Zhylka5, Kerstin Heitkamp2, Juan-Luis Gutiérrez-Chico6, Björn Goebel2, P Christian Schulze2, Hans R Figulla2, Tudor C Poerner2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endothelial progenitor cells (EPC) are involved in neovascularization and endothelial integrity. They might be protective in atherosclerosis. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a precise intracoronary imaging modality that allows assessment of subintimal plaque development. We evaluated the influence of EPC on coronary plaque burden in stable disease and implemented a novel computational plaque analysis algorithm using OCT.Entities:
Keywords: Coronary plaque; Endothelial progenitor cells; Optical coherence tomography; PCI; atherosclerosis
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28441929 PMCID: PMC5405468 DOI: 10.1186/s12872-017-0534-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord ISSN: 1471-2261 Impact factor: 2.298
Fig. 1Example of a 30 mm OCT pullback (bottom) with an identified calcified plaque (vertical line). The plaque is followed cross-section per cross-section and corresponding circumferential plaque measurements are shown. Plaque volume was calculated by the integral of each 2-dimensional plaque measurement over identified plaque length. Horizontal line (A) shows length of stent within the pullback. Stent struts are seen at 3 and 7 o’clock in the cross-section
Fig. 2Schematic illustration of sub-strut plaque distribution in an analyzed coronary segment as spread-out vessel chart. The investigated vessel segment is displayed longitudinally bisected and unfolded: Stent struts are displayed as grey dots according to their degree of stent incorporation in the vessel wall (neointimal thickness: grey color bar). Polygones display luminal surface plaque areas of five different identified sub-stent plaques (pink = fibroatheroma, yellow = calcified plaques blue = mixed plaque). X-axis = stent length, y-axis = stent circumference. Corresponding measurements including cap thickness, “luminal” surface area and volume of each plaque are given in the table below
Fig. 3Shoelace formula. Schematic presentation of the mathematical algorithm using the Shoelace formula to calculate plaque luminal surface areas by consecutive measurements of 20 cross-sections as shown in the table on the right
Baseline clinical characteristics and levels of endothelial progenitor cells of the study population
| Characteristics |
|
|---|---|
| mean ± SD or N (%) | |
| Age | 69.4 ± 7.5 |
| Male gender | 30 (69.8%) |
| Hypertension | 43 (100%) |
| Diabetes mellitus type 2 | 18 (41.9%) |
| Hyperlipidemia | 31 (72.1%) |
| Smoker/Ex-Smoker | 15 (34.9%) |
| GFR (ml/min) | 70.1 ± 27.4 |
| LDL (mmol/l) | 2.72 ± 1.4 |
| Statin therapy | 43 (100%) |
| EPC levels | |
| CD 34+/CD133+ (%) | 2.66 ± 2.0 |
| CD 34+/KDR+ (%) | 7.45 ± 5.1 |
| CD 34+/CD 133+/KDR+ (%) | 1.11 ± 1.0 |
LDL low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, GFR glomerular filtration rate, EPC endothelial progenitor cells, SD standard deviation. Subpopulations of endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) counts are presented as % of the relevant gate
Procedural characteristics of the study population
| Characteristics |
|
|---|---|
| mean ± SD or N (%) | |
| BASELINE | |
| Reference lumen diameter (mm) | 2.62 ± 0.34 |
| Minimal lumen diameter (mm) | 0.66 ± 0.4 |
| Stenosis (%) | 74.5 ±13.9 |
| Stent type: BMS / DES | 25 (56.8%) / 19 (43.2%) |
| Stent length (mm) | 19. 8 ± 4.9 |
| ≥ 2 stents | 5 (11.4%) |
| Stent diameter (mm) | 2.82 ± 0.24 |
| Ostial lesion | 3 (6.8%) |
| Chronic total occlusion | 9 (20.5%) |
| Lesion type (AHA/ACC) A/B/C | 0 / 32 (72.7%) / 12 (27.3%) |
| Target vessel RCA/LCX/LAD | 14 (31.8%) / 10 (22.7%) / 20 (45.5%) |
| Fluoroscopy time (min) | 11.6 ± 10.5 |
| FOLLOW-UP | |
| Follow-up interval (days) | 188.4 ± 20.0 |
| Minimal lumen diameter (mm) | 2.1 ± 0.4 |
| Diameter Stenosis (%) | 21.1 ± 12.5 |
BMS bare metal stent, DES drug-eluting stent, RCA right coronary artery, LCX left circumflex, LAD left anterior descending, SD standard deviation
OCT analysis of coronary plaque burden in each stented vessel segment (ROI)
| Plaque classification | N (mean ± SD)/ ROI | N (range)/ROI | Volume (mm3) | Surface Area (mm2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pathologic intimal thickening | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 0–1 | 1.0 ± 3.5 | 3.2 ± 10.7 |
| Fibrotic plaque | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 0–2 | 0.5 ± 1.6 | 1.0 ± 3.1 |
| Fibrocalcific plaque | 0.2 ± 0.4 | 0–2 | 0.4 ± 1.2 | 0.8 ± 2.6 |
| Fibroatheroma | 0.8 ± 0.8 | 0–3 | 3.4 ± 5.8 | 4.7 ± 6.7 |
| Mixed Plaques | 0.6 ± 1.0 | 0–4 | 2.3 ± 5.3 | 2.7 ± 5.8 |
| Total Plaques | 2.5 ± 1.5 | 0–6 | 7.5 ± 8.5 | 12.4 ± 13.7 |
ROI region of interest, N number, SD standard deviation
Fig. 4Bland-Altman plots. Interobserver agreement for plaque volume (left) and plaque luminal surface area (right) measurements
Fig. 5Scatter plot. Negative correlation between EPC levels (y-axis) and total plaque volume (x-axis)
Association between coronary plaque burden and EPC levels
| EPCs | Total Plaque Volume |
| Plaque Surface Area |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CD 34+/CD133+ |
| 0.007 |
| 0.006 |
| CD 34+/KDR+ |
| 0.010 |
| 0.012 |
| CD 34+/CD 133+/KDR+ |
| 0.006 |
| 0.010 |
R correlation coefficient, EPC endothelial progenitor cells
Multiple linear regression model (R 2 0.235, F 2.675, p = 0.048) for EPC and possible covariates for coronary plaque burden (total plaque volume): similar significant results were found for the other investigated EPC subpopulations and for plaque surface area
| Risk factor | Regression coefficient | Standard error |
| 95% CI for |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Constant) | 25.51 | 13.86 |
| 1.35; 57.67 |
| Age | −0.19 | 0.17 |
| −0.47; 0.23 |
| LDL | -1.16 | 1.02 |
| −3.21; 0.91 |
| Creatinine | −0.04 | 0.03 |
| −0.95; 0.18 |
| CD34+/CD133 + EPC | -2.43 | 0.78 |
| −4.0; −0.85 |
LDL low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, GFR glomerular filtration rate, EPC, endothelial progenitor cells, CI confidence interval