Home Risk Factors for Non-calcified Plaques in Asymptomatic Population
Post
Cancel

Risk Factors for Non-calcified Plaques in Asymptomatic Population

Rationale and Objectives

The aims of this study were to assess the prevalence of noncalcified coronary plaques in asymptomatic patients and to investigate the risk factors.

Materials and Methods

In this study, 584 patients were recruited prospectively. Patients were classified as having low, intermediate, or high pretest likelihoods of coronary artery disease according to the Morise score. Coronary computed tomographic angiography was performed in all patients using a 320–detector row dynamic-volume computed tomographic scanner. Imaging reconstruction was performed, and the postprocessed data were analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between risk factors and the presence of noncalcified plaque.

Results

Coronary computed tomographic angiography revealed noncalcified plaques in 38.3% of all patients (224 of 584). The prevalence of noncalcified plaques was significantly higher in patients with calcium scores > 0 ( P < .001). Significant differences were found between the degrees of luminal stenosis among patients with low, intermediate, and high pretest likelihoods of coronary artery disease ( P = .001), while the prevalence of noncalcified plaques did not differ with the Morise score ( P = .08). Noncalcified plaque was associated with hypercholesterolemia ( P = .02) and diabetes mellitus ( P = .002). Age ( P = .47), gender ( P = .58), estrogen status ( P = .55), smoking ( P = .22), hypertension ( P = .27), and family history ( P = .09) did not differ between patients with and those without noncalcified plaques.

Conclusions

Hypercholesterolemia and diabetes mellitus are high risk factors for the prevalence of noncalcified plaques for asymptomatic patients.

Pathologic studies have demonstrated that disruption or erosion of vulnerable plaques and subsequent thrombosis are among the most frequent causes of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) .

Previous studies have proven that the composition of coronary plaques, rather than the degree of stenosis, is closely associated with the occurrence of ACS . Therefore, an assessment of plaque components and stability is critical for the clinical prevention of ACS. Although invasive coronary angiography (ICA) can provide a direct visualization of the plaque surface and intraluminal structures, it cannot distinguish the various components of plaques. Intravascular ultrasound has been proven to be an effective approach to detect the composition of plaques . However, ultrasound has been restrained from widespread clinical applications because of its complexity, expense, and invasiveness. In recent years, computed tomographic (CT) angiography (CTA) has been regarded as an emerging noninvasive technique for coronary plaque detection and evaluation. Although considered highly sensitive to calcification, CTA has also been found useful for evaluating noncalcified plaques . Previous studies using coronary CTA have confirmed the correlation between noncalcified components and the vulnerability of plaques . In some studies, noncalcified coronary plaques have also been demonstrated to be an important risk factor for ACS .

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Materials and methods

Study Population

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

CT Protocol

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Reconstruction Method

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

CT Data Analysis

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Figure 1, Noncalcified plaques causing different grades of stenosis: (a) grade I, (b) grade II, (c) grade III, and (d) grade IV.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Statistical Analysis

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Results

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Table 1

Baseline Characteristics of the Study Patients ( n = 584)

Variable Value Age (y) 58.3 ± 10.7 Men/women 316/268 Average body mass index (kg/m 2 ) 24.2 ± 2.7 Diabetes mellitus 286 (49.0%) Hypertension 278 (47.6%) Hypercholesterolemia 326 (55.8%) Family history of CAD 316 (54.1%) Female estrogen status (positive/negative) 138/130 Smoking 212 (36.3%) Pretest likelihood of CAD Low 204 (34.9%) Intermediate 300 (51.4%) High 80 (13.7%)

CAD, coronary artery disease.

Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation or as number (percentage).

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Figure 2, Distribution of coronary computed tomographic angiographic findings. Noncalcified plaques, alone or in combination with calcifications in other segments, were detected in 38.3% patients.

Figure 3, Distribution of luminal stenosis classified by different pretest likelihood of coronary artery disease. There was significantly difference of luminal stenosis among patients with low, intermediate, and high pretest likelihoods of coronary artery disease ( P = .001).

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Table 2

Univariate and Multivariate Logistic Regression Demonstrating Associations of Risk Factors with Presence of Noncalcified Plaque

Variable Univariate Logistic Regression Multivariate Logistic Regression OR 95% CI_P_ OR 95% CI_P_ Age 0.98 0.87–1.12 .80 0.95 0.81–1.10 .47 Gender 0.61 0.38–0.99 .04 0.86 0.50–1.47 .58 Body mass index 1.88 1.17–3.03 .01 1.10 0.99–1.21 .07 Diabetes mellitus 2.74 1.68–4.48 <.001 2.42 1.40–4.18 .002 Hypertension 1.56 0.97–2.51 .07 1.35 0.79–2.23 .27 Hypercholesterolemia 1.99 1.22–3.24 .006 1.94 1.12–3.38 .02 Family history 0.91 0.57–1.46 .70 0.62 0.36–1.09 .09 Estrogen status 0.96 0.67–1.35 .80 1.14 0.75–1.71 .55 Smoking 1.88 1.17–3.04 .01 1.41 0.82–2.44 .22

CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Discussion

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<

References

  • 1. Mizuno K., Satomura K., Miyamoto A., et. al.: Angioscopic evaluation of coronary-artery thrombi in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 1992; 326: pp. 287-291.

  • 2. Falk E., Shah P., Fuster V.: Coronary plaque disruption. Circulation 1995; 92: pp. 657-671.

  • 3. Stary H.C., Chandler A.B., Dinsmore R.E., et. al.: A definition of advanced types of atherosclerotic lesions and a histological classification of atherosclerosis. A report from the Committee on Vascular Lesions of the Council on Arteriosclerosis, American Heart Association. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1995; 15: pp. 1512-1531.

  • 4. Kelly P., Bhatt D.L.: Identification of vulnerable plaque—the quest continues. J Invasive Cardiol 2007; 19: pp. 55-57.

  • 5. Little W., Constantinescu M., Applegate R., et. al.: Can coronary angiography predict the site of a subsequent myocardial infarction in patients with mild-to-moderate coronary artery disease?. Circulation 1988; 78: pp. 1157-1166.

  • 6. Nissen S., Yock P.: Intravascular ultrasound: novel pathophysiological insights and current clinical applications. Circulation 2001; 103: pp. 604-616.

  • 7. Kelly J., Thickman D., Abramson S., et. al.: Coronary CT angiography findings in patients without coronary calcification. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 191: pp. 50-55.

  • 8. Achenbach S., Ropers D., Hoffmann U., et. al.: Assessment of coronary remodeling in stenotic and nonstenotic coronary atherosclerotic lesions by multidetector spiral computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43: pp. 842-847.

  • 9. Leber A., Knez A., Becker A., et. al.: Accuracy of multidetector spiral computed tomography in identifying and differentiating the composition of coronary atherosclerotic plaques: a comparative study with intracoronary ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43: pp. 1241-1247.

  • 10. Leber A.W., Knez A., von Ziegler F., et. al.: Quantification of obstructive and nonobstructive coronary lesions by 64-slice computed tomography: a comparative study with quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46: pp. 147-154.

  • 11. Matter C., Stuber M., Nahrendorf M.: Imaging of the unstable plaque: how far have we got?. Eur Heart J 2009; 30: pp. 2566-2574.

  • 12. Leber A.W., von Ziegler F., Becker A., et. al.: Characteristics of coronary plaques before angiographic progression determined by multi-slice CT. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2008; 24: pp. 423-428.

  • 13. Uetani T., Amano T., Kunimura A., et. al.: The association between plaque characterization by CT angiography and post-procedural myocardial infarction in patients with elective stent implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010; 3: pp. 19-28.

  • 14. Morise A.P., Haddad W.J., Beckner D.: Development and validation of a clinical score to estimate the probability of coronary artery disease in men and women presenting with suspected coronary disease. Am J Med 1997; 102: pp. 350-356.

  • 15. Executive summary of the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA 2001; 285: pp. 2486-2497.

  • 16. Morise A.P., Dalal J.N., Duval R.D.: Value of a simple measure of estrogen status for improving the diagnosis of coronary artery disease in women. Am J Med 1993; 94: pp. 491-496.

  • 17. Austen W.G., Edwards J.E., Frye R.L., et. al.: A reporting system on patients evaluated for coronary artery disease. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee for Grading of Coronary Artery Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery, American Heart Association. Circulation 1975; 51: pp. 5-40.

  • 18. Wissler R.W., Strong J.P., PDAY Research Group: Risk factors and progression of atherosclerosis in youth. Am J Pathol 1998; 153: pp. 1023-1033.

  • 19. Strong J.P., Malcom G.T., McMahan C.A., et. al.: Prevalence and extent of atherosclerosis in adolescents and young adults: implications for prevention from the Pathobiological Determinants of Atherosclerosis in Youth Study. JAMA 1999; 281: pp. 727-735.

  • 20. Achenbach S., Moselewski F., Ropers D., et. al.: Detection of calcified and noncalcified coronary atherosclerotic plaque by contrast-enhanced, submillimeter multidetector spiral computed tomography: a segment-based comparison with intravascular ultrasound. Circulation 2004; 109: pp. 14-17.

  • 21. Dewey M., Zimmermann E., Deissenrieder F., et. al.: Noninvasive coronary angiography by 320-row computed tomography with lower radiation exposure and maintained diagnostic accuracy: comparison of results with cardiac catheterization in a head-to-head pilot investigation. Circulation 2009; 120: pp. 867-875.

  • 22. Kitagawa K., Lardo A., Lima J., et. al.: Prospective ECG-gated 320 row detector computed tomography: implications for CT angiography and perfusion imaging. The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging 2009; 25: pp. 201-208.

  • 23. Henneman M., Schuijf J., Van Werkhoven J., et. al.: Multi-slice computed tomography coronary angiography for ruling out suspected coronary artery disease: what is the prevalence of a normal study in a general clinical population?. Eur Heart J 2008; 29: pp. 2006-2013.

  • 24. Naghavi M., Libby P., Falk E., et. al.: From vulnerable plaque to vulnerable patient. Circulation 2003; 108: pp. 1664-1672.

  • 25. Mendis S., Nordet P., Fernandez-Britto J., et. al.: Atherosclerosis in children and young adults: an overview of the World Health Organization and International Society and Federation of Cardiology study on pathobiological determinants of atherosclerosis in youth study (1985-1995). Prevent Control 2005; 1: pp. 3-15.

  • 26. Zieske A.W., McMahan C.A., McGill H.C.: Smoking is associated with advanced coronary atherosclerosis in youth. Atherosclerosis 2005; 180: pp. 87-92.

  • 27. Hurwitz L., Reiman R., Yoshizumi T., et. al.: Radiation dose from contemporary cardiothoracic multidetector CT protocols with an anthropomorphic female phantom: implications for cancer induction. Radiology 2007; 245: pp. 742-750.

  • 28. Cannon C., Braunwald E., McCabe C., et. al.: Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: pp. 1495-1504.

  • 29. Stamler J., Vaccaro O., Neaton J.D., et. al.: Diabetes, other risk factors, and 12-yr cardiovascular mortality for men screened in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Diabetes Care 1993; 16: pp. 434-444.

  • 30. Leschka S., Scheffel H., Husmann L., et. al.: Effect of decrease in heart rate variability on the diagnostic accuracy of 64-MDCT coronary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190: pp. 1583-1590.

  • 31. Rosamond W.D., Chambless L.E., Folsom A.R., et. al.: Trends in the incidence of myocardial infarction and in mortality due to coronary heart disease, 1987 to 1994. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: pp. 861-867.

  • 32. Scognamiglio R., Negut C., Ramondo A., et. al.: Detection of coronary artery disease in asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47: pp. 65-71.

  • 33. Cademartiri F., Mollet N., Lemos P., et. al.: Impact of coronary calcium score on diagnostic accuracy for the detection of significant coronary stenosis with multislice computed tomography angiography. Am J Cardiol 2005; 95: pp. 1225-1227.

  • 34. Rumberger J., Sheedy P., Breen J., et. al.: Electron beam computed tomographic coronary calcium score cutpoints and severity of associated angiographic lumen stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 29: pp. 1542-1548.

  • 35. Hadamitzky M., Distler R., Meyer T., et. al.: Prognostic value of coronary computed tomographic angiography in comparison with calcium scoring and clinical risk scores. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2011; 4: pp. 16-23.

  • 36. Elias-Smale S., Proenca R., Koller M., et. al.: Coronary calcium score improves classification of coronary heart disease risk in the elderly: the Rotterdam Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56: pp. 1407-1414.

  • 37. Hong Y., Choi Y., Jeong M., et. al.: Relationship between coronary calcium score by cardiac computed tomography angiography and plaque components by virtual histology-intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55: A178.E1667

  • 38. Bauer R.W., Thilo C., Chiaramida S.A., et. al.: Noncalcified atherosclerotic plaque burden at coronary CT angiography: a better predictor of ischemia at stress myocardial perfusion imaging than calcium score and stenosis severity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: pp. 410-418.

  • 39. Lin F., Shaw L.J., Berman D.S., et. al.: Multidetector computed tomography coronary artery plaque predictors of stress-induced myocardial ischemia by SPECT. Atherosclerosis 2008; 197: pp. 700-709.

  • 40. Cormode D., Roessl E., Thran A., et. al.: Atherosclerotic plaque composition: analysis with multicolor CT and targeted gold nanoparticles. Radiology 2010; 256: pp. 774-782.

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.