ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2010
Intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency analysis of the lesion segment profile in ACS patients.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optical coherence tomography versus intravascular ultrasound for culprit lesion assessment in patients with acute myocardial infarction.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2020Article
- The maximum necrotic core area is most often located proximally to the site of most severe narrowing: a virtual histology intravascular ultrasound study.Heart and vessels · 2013Article
- Longitudinal heterogeneity of coronary artery distensibility in plaques related to acute coronary syndrome.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2012Article
- Review
- Intravascular ultrasound study and evidence of pathological coronary flow reserve in patients with isolated coronary artery aneurysms.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntravascular ultrasound radiofrequency analysis (IVUS-RF) characterizes plaque components as necrotic core (NC) and dense calcium (DC). The aim of this study was to perform an IVUS-RF derived analysis of the lesion segment profile in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. Therefore, we compared the site of the minimum lumen area--cross sectional area (mla-CSA) with the worst lesion site--CSA (ws-CSA) defined by the maximum NC site.
methodsWe performed IVUS-RF derived plaque composition and plaque-type classification analysis in 48 ACS patients with 48 culprit (CL) and 69 non-culprit lesions (NCL).
resultsThe plaque dimension of the mla- and ws-CSA was significantly different regarding the lumen area (5.18 +/- 2.09 mm2 vs. 6.72 +/- 2.73 mm2, p = 0.0013) and the vessel area (14.80 +/- 5.86 mm2 vs. 17.15 +/- 4.94 mm2, p = 0.0142). The absolute plaque composition was also significantly different regarding the DC tissue (0.71 +/- 0.57 mm2 vs. 0.98 +/- 0.54 mm2, p = 0.0102) and the NC tissue (1.41 +/- 1.28 mm2 vs. 1.85 +/- 1.37 mm2, p = 0.0469). The plaque-type classification revealed significantly more thin cap fibroatheroma (TCFA) lesions at the ws-CSA compared to the mla-CSA (n = 53/89.8% vs. n = 26/44.1%, p < 0.0001). In the majority of the CL and NCL lesion segments the ws-CSA was located proximal to the mla-CSA compared to the distal location (n = 65/55.6% vs. n = 23/19.7%).
conclusionsIn the majority of the lesion segments in ACS patients the ws-CSA is not identical with the mla-CSA. The ws-CSA compared to mla-CSA presented with significantly more NC and DC tissue resulting in a higher amount of TCFA lesions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19768480What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.