Anubodh S Varshney1, Ahmet U Coskun2, Gerasimos Siasos3, Charles C Maynard4, Zhongyue Pu1, Kevin J Croce1, Nicholas V Cefalo5, Michelle A Cormier5, Dimitris Fotiadis6, Kostas Stefanou6, Michail I Papafaklis6, Lampros Michalis6, Stacie VanOosterhout7, Abbey Mulder7, Ryan D Madder7, Peter H Stone8. 1. Brigham and Women's Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA. 3. 1st Department of Cardiology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Hippokration General Hospital, Athens, Greece. 4. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Brigham and Women's Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Faculty of Medicine, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece. 7. Frederik Meijer Heart & Vascular Institute, Spectrum Health, Grand Rapids, MI, USA. 8. Brigham and Women's Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: pstone@bwh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to characterize the spatial proximity of plaque destabilizing features local endothelial shear stress (ESS), minimal luminal area (MLA), plaque burden (PB), and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) lipid signal in high- vs. low-risk plaques. METHODS: Coronary arteries imaged with angiography and NIRS-intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) underwent 3D reconstruction and computational fluid dynamics calculations of local ESS. ESS, PB, MLA, and lipid core burden index (LCBI), for each 3-mm arterial segment were obtained in arteries with large lipid-rich plaque (LRP) vs. arteries with smaller LRP. The locations of the MLA, minimum ESS (minESS), maximum ESS (maxESS), maximum PB (maxPB), and maximum LCBI in a 4-mm segment (maxLCBI4mm) were determined along the length of each plaque. RESULTS: The spatial distributions of minESS, maxESS, maxPB, and maxLCBI4mm, in reference to the MLA, were significantly heterogeneous within and between each variable. The location of maxLCBI4mm was spatially discordant from sites of the MLA (p<0.0001), minESS (p = 0.003), and maxESS (p = 0.003) in arteries with large LRP (maxLCBI4mm ≥ 400) and non-large LRP. Large LRP arteries had higher maxESS (9.31 ± 4.78 vs. 6.32 ± 5.54 Pa; p = 0.023), lower minESS (0.41 ± 0.16 vs. 0.61 ± 0.26 Pa; p = 0.007), smaller MLA (3.54 ± 1.22 vs. 5.14 ± 2.65 mm2; p = 0.002), and larger maxPB (70.64 ± 9.95% vs. 56.70 ± 13.34%, p<0.001) compared with non-large LRP arteries. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant spatial heterogeneity of destabilizing plaque features along the course of both large and non-large LRPs. Large LRPs exhibit significantly more abnormal destabilizing plaque features than non-large LRPs. Prospective, longitudinal studies are required to determine which patterns of heterogeneous destabilizing features act synergistically to cause plaque destabilization.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to characterize the spatial proximity of plaque destabilizing features local endothelial shear stress (ESS), minimal luminal area (MLA), plaque burden (PB), and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) lipid signal in high- vs. low-risk plaques. METHODS: Coronary arteries imaged with angiography and NIRS-intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) underwent 3D reconstruction and computational fluid dynamics calculations of local ESS. ESS, PB, MLA, and lipid core burden index (LCBI), for each 3-mm arterial segment were obtained in arteries with large lipid-rich plaque (LRP) vs. arteries with smaller LRP. The locations of the MLA, minimum ESS (minESS), maximum ESS (maxESS), maximum PB (maxPB), and maximum LCBI in a 4-mm segment (maxLCBI4mm) were determined along the length of each plaque. RESULTS: The spatial distributions of minESS, maxESS, maxPB, and maxLCBI4mm, in reference to the MLA, were significantly heterogeneous within and between each variable. The location of maxLCBI4mm was spatially discordant from sites of the MLA (p<0.0001), minESS (p = 0.003), and maxESS (p = 0.003) in arteries with large LRP (maxLCBI4mm ≥ 400) and non-large LRP. Large LRP arteries had higher maxESS (9.31 ± 4.78 vs. 6.32 ± 5.54 Pa; p = 0.023), lower minESS (0.41 ± 0.16 vs. 0.61 ± 0.26 Pa; p = 0.007), smaller MLA (3.54 ± 1.22 vs. 5.14 ± 2.65 mm2; p = 0.002), and larger maxPB (70.64 ± 9.95% vs. 56.70 ± 13.34%, p<0.001) compared with non-large LRP arteries. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant spatial heterogeneity of destabilizing plaque features along the course of both large and non-large LRPs. Large LRPs exhibit significantly more abnormal destabilizing plaque features than non-large LRPs. Prospective, longitudinal studies are required to determine which patterns of heterogeneous destabilizing features act synergistically to cause plaque destabilization.
Authors: Ryan D Madder; Mohsin Khan; Mustafa Husaini; Margaret Chi; Sarah Dionne; Stacie VanOosterhout; Andrew Borgman; J Stewart Collins; Mark Jacoby Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Antonios P Antoniadis; Michail I Papafaklis; Saeko Takahashi; Koki Shishido; Ioannis Andreou; Yiannis S Chatzizisis; Masaya Tsuda; Shingo Mizuno; Yasuhiro Makita; Takenori Domei; Tomokazu Ikemoto; Ahmet U Coskun; Junko Honye; Shigeru Nakamura; Shigeru Saito; Elazer R Edelman; Charles L Feldman; Peter H Stone Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-08
Authors: Adam J Brown; Zhongzhao Teng; Patrick A Calvert; Nikil K Rajani; Orla Hennessy; Nitesh Nerlekar; Daniel R Obaid; Charis Costopoulos; Yuan Huang; Stephen P Hoole; Martin Goddard; Nick E J West; Jonathan H Gillard; Martin R Bennett Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Peter H Stone; Akiko Maehara; Ahmet Umit Coskun; Charles C Maynard; Marina Zaromytidou; Gerasimos Siasos; Ioannis Andreou; Dimitris Fotiadis; Kostas Stefanou; Michail Papafaklis; Lampros Michalis; Alexandra J Lansky; Gary S Mintz; Patrick W Serruys; Charles L Feldman; Gregg W Stone Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-09-18
Authors: Ron Waksman; Carlo Di Mario; Rebecca Torguson; Ziad A Ali; Varinder Singh; William H Skinner; Andre K Artis; Tim Ten Cate; Eric Powers; Christopher Kim; Evelyn Regar; S Chiu Wong; Stephen Lewis; Joanna Wykrzykowska; Sandeep Dube; Samer Kazziha; Martin van der Ent; Priti Shah; Paige E Craig; Quan Zou; Paul Kolm; H Bryan Brewer; Hector M Garcia-Garcia Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jin M Cheng; Hector M Garcia-Garcia; Sanneke P M de Boer; Isabella Kardys; Jung Ho Heo; K Martijn Akkerhuis; Rohit M Oemrawsingh; Ron T van Domburg; Jurgen Ligthart; Karen T Witberg; Evelyn Regar; Patrick W Serruys; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Eric Boersma Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Charis Costopoulos; Yuan Huang; Adam J Brown; Patrick A Calvert; Stephen P Hoole; Nick E J West; Jonathan H Gillard; Zhongzhao Teng; Martin R Bennett Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-07-19
Authors: Charis Costopoulos; Akiko Maehara; Yuan Huang; Adam J Brown; Jonathan H Gillard; Zhongzhao Teng; Gregg W Stone; Martin R Bennett Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-07-17
Authors: Harmony R Reynolds; Leslee J Shaw; James K Min; Courtney B Page; Daniel S Berman; Bernard R Chaitman; Michael H Picard; Raymond Y Kwong; Sean M O'Brien; Zhen Huang; Daniel B Mark; Ranjit K Nath; Sudhanshu K Dwivedi; Paola E P Smanio; Peter H Stone; Claes Held; Matyas Keltai; Sripal Bangalore; Jonathan D Newman; John A Spertus; Gregg W Stone; David J Maron; Judith S Hochman Journal: Circulation Date: 2021-09-09 Impact factor: 39.918