Atherosclerosis and the vulnerable plaque - imaging: Part II

2000 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 704-710 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. G. Worthley ◽  
G. Helft ◽  
A. G. Zaman ◽  
V. Fuster ◽  
J. J. Badimon
Author(s):  
Rong Bing ◽  
David E. Newby ◽  
Jagat Narula ◽  
Marc R. Dweck

Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death globally despite advances in medical therapy and risk stratification; ischaemic heart disease was responsible for an estimated 9.5 million deaths in 2016. To address this ongoing global burden of morbidity and mortality, there is a need for more sophisticated methods of diagnosis and prognostication, above and beyond clinical risk scores alone. The majority of myocardial infarction occurs due to ruptured atherosclerotic plaque, leading to acute thrombosis and coronary occlusion. For decades, the concept of the vulnerable plaque—plaques prone to rupture or thrombotic complications—has been central to our understanding of the pathophysiology of acute coronary syndromes. More recently, there has been a shift towards identifying the vulnerable patient through assessment of total atherosclerotic disease burden, in recognition of the fact that most plaque rupture events do not lead to clinical events. Moreover, demonstrating a strong causal link between vulnerable plaques and clinical events has previously proven difficult due to limitations in available invasive and non-invasive imaging modalities. However, we now have an array of imaging techniques that hold great potential for the advancement of vulnerable plaque imaging. These modalities are the subject of state-of-the-art clinical research, aiming to develop the role of atherosclerotic plaque imaging in modern clinical practice and ultimately to improve patient outcomes.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 364-366
Author(s):  
Thomas W. Johnson ◽  
Nikhil Joshi

2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Chad Hilty ◽  
Daniel H. Steinberg

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc R. Dweck ◽  
Zahi A. Fayad

2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (45) ◽  
pp. 3147-3154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Konstantinos Toutouzas ◽  
Georgios Benetos ◽  
Antonios Karanasos ◽  
Yiannis S. Chatzizisis ◽  
Andreas A. Giannopoulos ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 609-621 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Chen ◽  
Bruce A. Wasserman

2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-120
Author(s):  
Luca Saba ◽  
Mahmoud Mossa-Basha ◽  
Anne Abbott ◽  
Giuseppe Lanzino ◽  
Joanna M. Wardlaw ◽  
...  

<b><i>Background:</i></b> In the last 20–30 years, there have been many advances in imaging and therapeutic strategies for symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals with carotid artery stenosis. Our aim was to examine contemporary multinational practice standards. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Departmental Review Board approval for this study was obtained, and 3 authors prepared the 44 multiple choice survey questions. Endorsement was obtained by the European Society of Neuroradiology, American Society of Functional Neuroradiology, and African Academy of Neurology. A link to the online questionnaire was sent to their respective members and members of the Faculty Advocating Collaborative and Thoughtful Carotid Artery Treatments (FACTCATS). The questionnaire was open from May 16 to July 16, 2019. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The responses from 223 respondents from 46 countries were included in the analyses including 65.9% from academic university hospitals. Neuroradiologists/radiologists comprised 68.2% of respondents, followed by neurologists (15%) and vascular surgeons (12.9%). In symptomatic patients, half (50.4%) the respondents answered that the first exam they used to evaluate carotid bifurcation was ultrasound, followed by computed tomography angiography (CTA, 41.6%) and then magnetic resonance imaging (MRI 8%). In asymptomatic patients, the first exam used to evaluate carotid bifurcation was ultrasound in 88.8% of respondents, CTA in 7%, and MRA in 4.2%. The percent stenosis upon which carotid endarterectomy or stenting was recommended was reduced in the presence of imaging evidence of “vulnerable plaque features” by 66.7% respondents for symptomatic patients and 34.2% for asymptomatic patients with a smaller subset of respondents even offering procedural intervention to patients with &#x3c;50% symptomatic or asymptomatic stenosis. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> We found heterogeneity in current practices of carotid stenosis imaging and management in this worldwide survey with many respondents including vulnerable plaque imaging into their decision analysis despite the lack of proven benefit from clinical trials. This study highlights the need for new clinical trials using vulnerable plaque imaging to select high-risk patients despite maximal medical therapy who may benefit from procedural intervention.


Cor et Vasa ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. e362-e368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Horváth ◽  
Petr Hájek ◽  
Cyril Štěchovský ◽  
Josef Veselka

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document