| Literature DB >> 32340284 |
Nataliya V Mushenkova1, Volha I Summerhill2, Dongwei Zhang3, Elena B Romanenko4, Andrey V Grechko5, Alexander N Orekhov2,6,7.
Abstract
Atherosclerosis is a lipoprotein-driven inflammatory disorder leading to a plaque formation at specific sites of the arterial tree. After decades of slow progression, atherosclerotic plaque rupture and formation of thrombi are the major factors responsible for the development of acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). In this regard, the detection of high-risk (vulnerable) plaques is an ultimate goal in the management of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Vulnerable plaques have specific morphological features that make their detection possible, hence allowing for identification of high-risk patients and the tailoring of therapy. Plaque ruptures predominantly occur amongst lesions characterized as thin-cap fibroatheromas (TCFA). Plaques without a rupture, such as plaque erosions, are also thrombi-forming lesions on the most frequent pathological intimal thickening or fibroatheromas. Many attempts to comprehensively identify vulnerable plaque constituents with different invasive and non-invasive imaging technologies have been made. In this review, advantages and limitations of invasive and non-invasive imaging modalities currently available for the identification of plaque components and morphologic features associated with plaque vulnerability, as well as their clinical diagnostic and prognostic value, were discussed.Entities:
Keywords: atherosclerosis; invasive imaging; non-invasive imaging; vulnerable plaque
Year: 2020 PMID: 32340284 PMCID: PMC7216001 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21082992
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Comparison of the performance of optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in the structural analysis of coronary atherosclerosis.
| Morphological Features | IVUS | OCT |
|---|---|---|
| Internal elastic lamina | − | + |
| External elastic lamina | − | + |
| Lumen dimensions | + | ++ |
| Fibrous plaque | + | ++ |
| TCFA < 65 μm | − | + |
| Necrotic core | + | − |
| Lipid pools | + | + |
| Plaque burden | ++ | + |
| Microcalcifications | − | + |
| Spotty calcifications | + | ++ |
| Macrocalcifications | + | ++ |
| Fibrous cup erosion | − | + |
| Fibrous cup disruption | + | ++ |
| Macrophages | − | + |
| Thrombus | − | + |
| Intraplaque neovascularization | − | + |
| Neointima formation | − | + |
Note: (−) modality is unable to provide information of this type; (+) modality is capable to provide information of this type; (++) modality has superior ability.
Figure 1The utility of grayscale IVUS, VH-IVUS, OCT, and NIRS in the visualization of a vulnerable plaque. Note: IVUS—intravascular ultrasound; NIRS—near infrared spectroscopy; OCT—optical coherence tomography; PB—plaque burden; TCFA—thin-cap fibroatheroma; VH-IVUS—virtual histology intravascular ultrasound.
The capacity of intravascular modalities in the assessment of vulnerable plaque components.
| Characteristics of Vulnerable Plaque | Imaging Modality |
|---|---|
| Fibrous cup thickness (TCFA < 65 μm) | OCT |
| Necrotic core | IVUS, NIRS, NIRF, IVPA, FLIM |
| Inflammation | OCT, NIRF |
| Positive arterial remodeling | IVUS |
| “Spotty” and microcalcifications | IVUS, OCT |
| Neo-angiogenesis | OCT |
| Fibrous cup disruption, erosion, and thrombus | OCT |
Note: FLIM—fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy; IVPA—intravascular photoacoustic imaging; NIRF—near-infrared fluorescence; NIRS—near infrared spectroscopy; OCT—optical coherence tomography; VH-IVUS—virtual histology intravascular ultrasound.
Comparison of the performance of combined intravascular imaging modalities in the characterization of vulnerable plaques.
| Characteristics of Vulnerable Plaque | Combined Imaging Modality | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IVUS-OCT | IVUS- | OCT-NIRS | IVUS-NIRF | OCT-NIRF | IVUS-IVPA | IVUS-FLIM | |
| Lumen dimensions | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Plaque burden | *** | *** | * | *** | * | *** | *** |
| Positive arterial remodelling | *** | *** | * | *** | * | *** | *** |
| Lipid pool | ** | *** | *** | * | ** | ** | ** |
| Fibrous cap thickness | *** | ** | *** | * | *** | * | *** |
| Neo-angiogenesis | ** | NA | ** | NA | ** | * | * |
| Inflammation | * | NA | * | *** | *** | ** | ** |
Note: (***)—excellent modality performance; (**)—moderate modality performance; (*)—modest modality performance; (NA)—non-applicable (the modality is unable to provide information of this type).
The summary of the advantages and disadvantages of non-invasive imaging modalities.
| Imaging Modality | Advantages | Disadvantages | References |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Established molecular imaging modality for identification and quantification of inflammation of atherosclerotic plaques and prediction of the natural course of atherosclerosis and risk of MACE. | Not available for wide use. | [ |
|
| Established molecular imaging modality with high specificity and good predictive value. | Low sensitivity: low spatial resolution causing difficulty in distinguishing between lipid rich and fibrous type plaques. | [ |
|
| Has a good ability to provide detailed information on the artery wall morphological parameters, luminal area, and plaque composition. | Long scan time. | [ |
Note: CTCA—computed tomographic coronary angiography; MRI—magnetic resonance imaging; PET—positron emission tomography.
Targeting of cellular and molecular components of vulnerable atherosclerotic plaques with molecular imaging.
| Molecular Target | Plaque Component/Feature | Nanoparticle/Molecular Probe | Imaging Technique | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
VCAM-1 | macrophage content ECs |
DT-MPIO |
MRI | [ |
| αvβ3-integrin | angiogenesis |
Gd-DTPA-BOA | MRI | [ |
| OSEs | oxLDL-enriched macrophages |
G8 dendrimers modified by manganese and antibody MDA2 | MRI | [ |
| p32 proteins | activated macrophages | (LyP-1)4-dendrimer-64Cu | PET–CT | [ |
| Au-HDL | macrophage burden, calcification, and stenosis | Au-HDL | Spectral CT | [ |
| Macrophage scavenger receptor (CD204) | macrophage content | Gd-carrying immunomicelles | MRI | [ |
| Macrophage membrane receptor (CD163) | CD163-expressing macrophages | NP-CD163(m) | MRI | [ |
| CD68 | macrophages | CD68-Fe-HSNs | US–MRI | [ |
| LOX-1 | macrophages, SMCs, apoptosis, MMP-9 | 111In-liposome—LOX-1 Ab-DiI | SPECT– CT MRI | [ |
| CD44 | CD44-expressing macrophages | HA-GdIO NPs | T 1–T 2 dual-model MRI | [ |
| SR-A | activated macrophages | Fe-PFH-PLGA/CS-DS NPs | MRI, LIFU | [ |
| CD80 | macrophages, DCs |
carbon-11 | PET | [ |
| MMPs | activity of MMPs |
RP805 | micro-SPECT scintigraphy | [ |
| Elastin | vascular remodeling | Gd-based elastin specific contrast agent (LMI1174) | MRI | [ |
| CB2 receptor | macrophages | [11C]RS-016 | PET | [ |
| NGAL | activity of MMP-9 | NGAL/24p3 micelles | MRI | [ |
Note: Au-HDL, gold high-density lipoprotein nanoparticle; αvβ3-integrin, alpha(v)beta(3)integrin; CD68-Fe-HSNs, biodegradable Fe-doped hollow silica nanospheres conjugated with anti-CD68 antibody; CGS 27023A, radioligand; [11C]RS-016, cannabinoid receptor type 2 (CB2)-specific radiotracer; CT, computed tomography; DC, dendritic cells; DT-MPIO, dual-targeted microparticles of iron oxide; ECs, endothelial cells; 18F-4V, 18F-labeled tetrameric peptide-PET imaging reporter targeted to VCAM-1; Fe-PFH-PLGA/CS-DS NPs, Fe-PFH (phase transitional material perfluorohexane)-poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA)/chitosan (CS)-dextran sulfate (DS) nanoparticles; [18F]FDM, 2-deoxy-2-[18F] fluoro-D-mannose; [18F]FDG, 2-deoxy-2-[18F] fluoro-D-glucose; Gd-DTPA-BOA, gadolinium–diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid-bis-olcate; Gd, gadolinium; HA-GdIO NPs, gadolinium-doped oxide nanoparticles functionalized by hyaluronic acid; IONP, iron oxide nanoparticle; LIFU, low-intensity focused ultrasound; LOX-1, lectin-like oxidized low-density lipoprotein receptor-1; LUSPIOs, lipid-coated ultra-small superparamagnetic iron particles; MMP, matrix metalloproteinase; LyP-1, a cyclic 9-amino acid peptide; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; NGAL, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin; NP-CD163(m), gold-coated iron oxide nanoparticles vectorized with an anti-CD163 antibody; OSEs, oxidation-specific epitopes; oxLDL, oxidized low-density lipoprotein; PET, positron emission tomography; RP805, 99mTc-labeled MMP-targeted tracer; SPECT, single-photon emission computed tomography; US-MRI, ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging dual-modality; VCAM-1, vascular cell adhesion molecule-1; VEGFR, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor; 99mTc-B2702p1, radiotracer.
Figure 2Schematic representation of morphological components of a vulnerable plaque that can be detected both by invasive and non-invasive imaging modalities. Note: CT—computed tomography; FLIM—fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy; IVPA—intravascular photoacoustic imaging; IVUS—intravascular ultrasound; MRI—magnetic resonance imaging; NIRF—near-infrared fluorescence; NIRS—near infrared spectroscopy; OCT—optical coherence tomography; PET—positron emission tomography.