Use of high-risk coronary atherosclerotic plaque detection for risk stratification of patients with stable chest pain: A secondary analysis of the promise randomized clinical trial

JAMA Cardiology

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 144-152

  Ferencik, Maros ^a,b   Mayrhofer, Thomas ^b,c   Bittner, Daniel O ^b,d   Emami, Hamed ^b   Puchner, Stefan B ^b,e   Lu, Michael T ^b   Meyersohn, Nandini M ^b   Ivanov, Alexander V ^b   Adami, Elizabeth C ^b   Patel, Manesh R ^f   Mark, Daniel B ^f   Udelson, James E ^g   Lee, Kerry L ^f   Douglas, Pamela S ^f   Hoffmann, Udo ^b  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES STRALSUND   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ERLANGEN   (Germany)

^e MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^f DUKE CLINICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^g TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; ATHEROSCLEROTIC CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE RISK SCORE; CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY ATHEROSCLEROSIS; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEART INFARCTION; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; MAJOR ADVERSE CARDIAC EVENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTPATIENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCORING SYSTEM; SECONDARY ANALYSIS; SEX DIFFERENCE; THORAX PAIN; UNITED STATES; UNSTABLE ANGINA PECTORIS; ATHEROSCLEROTIC PLAQUE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CORONARY ARTERY OBSTRUCTION; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HEART MUSCLE ISCHEMIA; HEART VENTRICLE REMODELING; MORTALITY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROGNOSIS;

CHEST PAIN; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY STENOSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MYOCARDIAL ISCHEMIA; PLAQUE, ATHEROSCLEROTIC; PROGNOSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; VENTRICULAR REMODELING;

EID: 85043522810     PISSN: 23806583     EISSN: 23806591     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2017.4973     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Budoff MJ, Dowe D, Jollis JG, et al. Diagnostic performance of 64-multidetector row coronary computed tomographic angiography for evaluation of coronary artery stenosis in individuals without known coronary artery disease: Results from the prospective multicenter ACCURACY (Assessment by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography of Individuals Undergoing Invasive Coronary Angiography) trial. J AmColl Cardiol. 2008;52(21): 1724-1732.
2. Meijboom WB, Meijs MFL, Schuijf JD, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: A prospective, multicenter, multivendor study. J AmColl Cardiol. 2008;52(25):2135-2144.
3. Miller JM, Rochitte CE, Dewey M, et al. Diagnostic performance of coronary angiography by 64-row CT. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(22):2324-2336.
4. Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Patel MR, et al; PROMISE Investigators. Outcomes of anatomical versus functional testing for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(14):1291-1300.
5. SCOT-HEART investigators. CT coronary angiography in patients with suspected angina due to coronary heart disease (SCOT-HEART): An open-label, parallel-group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9985):2383-2391.
6. BittencourtMS, Hulten E, Ghoshhajra B, et al. Prognostic value of nonobstructive and obstructive coronary artery disease detected by coronary computed tomography angiography to identify cardiovascular events. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7(2):282-291.
7. Hadamitzky M, Taübert S, Deseive S, et al. Prognostic value of coronary computed tomography angiography during 5 years of follow-up in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(42):3277-3285.
8. Hoffmann U, Ferencik M, Udelson JE, et al; PROMISE Investigators. Prognostic value of noninvasive cardiovascular testing in patients with stable chest pain: Insights from the PROMISE trial (prospective multicenter imaging study for evaluation of chest pain). Circulation. 2017;135(24): 2320-2332.
9. Stone GW, Maehara A, Lansky AJ, et al; PROSPECT Investigators. A prospective natural-history study of coronary atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(3):226-235.
10. Virmani R, Burke AP, Farb A, Kolodgie FD. Pathology of the vulnerable plaque. J AmColl Cardiol. 2006;47(8)(suppl):C13-C18.
11. Bom MJ, van der Heijden DJ, Kedhi E, et al. Early detection and treatment of the vulnerable coronary plaque: Can we prevent acute coronary syndromes? Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10(5):e005973.
12. Motoyama S, Ito H, Sarai M, et al. Plaque characterization by coronary computed tomography angiography and the likelihood of acute coronary events in mid-term follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(4):337-346.
13. Puchner SB, Liu T, Mayrhofer T, et al. High-risk plaque detected on coronary CT angiography predicts acute coronary syndromes independent of significant stenosis in acute chest pain: Results from the ROMICAT-II trial. J AmColl Cardiol. 2014;64(7): 684-692.
14. Maurovich-Horvat P, Schlett CL, Alkadhi H, et al. The napkin-ring sign indicates advanced atherosclerotic lesions in coronary CT angiography. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5(12):1243-1252.
15. Maurovich-Horvat P, Schlett CL, Alkadhi H, et al. Differentiation of early from advanced coronary atherosclerotic lesions: Systematic comparison of CT, intravascular US, and optical frequency domain imaging with histopathologic examination in ex vivo human hearts. Radiology. 2012;265(2):393-401.
16. Ito T, Terashima M, Kaneda H, et al. Comparison of in vivo assessment of vulnerable plaque by 64-slice multislice computed tomography versus optical coherence tomography. Am J Cardiol. 2011; 107(9):1270-1277.
17. Kröner ESJ, van Velzen JE, Boogers MJ, et al. Positive remodeling on coronary computed tomography as a marker for plaque vulnerability on virtual histology intravascular ultrasound. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107(12):1725-1729.
18. Hoffmann U, Moselewski F, Nieman K, et al. Noninvasive assessment of plaque morphology and composition in culprit and stable lesions in acute coronary syndrome and stable lesions in stable angina by multidetector computed tomography. J AmColl Cardiol. 2006;47(8):1655-1662.
19. Pflederer T, MarwanM, Schepis T, et al. Characterization of culprit lesions in acute coronary syndromes using coronary dual-source CT angiography. Atherosclerosis. 2010;211(2):437-444.
20. Motoyama S, Sarai M, Harigaya H, et al. Computed tomographic angiography characteristics of atherosclerotic plaques subsequently resulting in acute coronary syndrome. J AmColl Cardiol. 2009;54(1):49-57.
21. Otsuka K, Fukuda S, Tanaka A, et al. Napkin-ring sign on coronary CT angiography for the prediction of acute coronary syndrome. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6(4):448-457.
22. Yamamoto H, Kitagawa T, Ohashi N, et al. Noncalcified atherosclerotic lesions with vulnerable characteristics detected by coronary CT angiography and future coronary events. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2013;7(3):192-199.
23. Douglas PS, Hoffmann U, Lee KL, et al; PROMISE investigators. PROspective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of chest pain: Rationale and design of the PROMISE trial. Am Heart J. 2014;167(6):796-803.e1.
24. D'Agostino RB Sr, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, et al. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: The Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2008;117(6):743-753.
25. Goff DC Jr, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014; 129(25)(suppl 2):S49-S73.
26. Abbara S, Blanke P, Maroules CD, et al. SCCT guidelines for the performance and acquisition of coronary computed tomographic angiography: A report of the society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee: Endorsed by the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging (NASCI). J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2016;10(6):435-449.
27. Leipsic J, Abbara S, Achenbach S, et al. SCCT guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of coronary CT angiography: A report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2014;8 (5):342-358.
28. 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(1): 14-17.
29. Gauss S, Achenbach S, Pflederer T, Schuhbäck A, DanielWG, MarwanM. Assessment of coronary artery remodelling by dual-source CT: A head-to-head comparison with intravascular ultrasound. Heart. 2011;97(12):991-997.
30. Motoyama S, Kondo T, Sarai M, et al. Multislice computed tomographic characteristics of coronary lesions in acute coronary syndromes. J AmColl Cardiol. 2007;50(4):319-326.
31. Maurovich-Horvat P, Hoffmann U, Vorpahl M, Nakano M, Virmani R, Alkadhi H. The napkin-ring sign: CT signature of high-risk coronary plaques? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3(4):440-444.
32. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB Sr, Steyerberg EW. Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers. Stat Med. 2011;30(1):11-21.
33. Pasterkamp G, den Ruijter HM, Libby P. Temporal shifts in clinical presentation and underlying mechanisms of atherosclerotic disease. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2017;14(1):21-29.
34. Hulten EA, Carbonaro S, Petrillo SP, Mitchell JD, Villines TC. Prognostic value of cardiac computed tomography angiography: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J AmColl Cardiol. 2011;57(10):1237-1247.
35. Chow BJW, Small G, YamY, et al; CONFIRM Investigators. Incremental prognostic value of cardiac computed tomography in coronary artery disease using CONFIRM: COroNary computed tomography angiography evaluation for clinical outcomes: An InteRnational Multicenter registry. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4(5):463-472.
36. LittleWC, Constantinescu M, Applegate RJ, et al. Can coronary angiography predict the site of a subsequentmyocardial infarction in patients with mild-to-moderate coronary artery disease? Circulation. 1988;78(5 Pt 1):1157-1166.
37. Ambrose JA, Tannenbaum MA, Alexopoulos D, et al. Angiographic progression of coronary artery disease and the development ofmyocardial infarction. J AmColl Cardiol. 1988;12(1):56-62.
38. Mancini GBJ, Hartigan PM, Bates ER, et al; COURAGE Investigators and Coordinators. Angiographic disease progression and residual risk of cardiovascular events while on optimal medical therapy: Observations from the COURAGE Trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(6):545-552.
39. Cury RC, Abbara S, Achenbach S, et al; Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology. CAD-RADS(TM) Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data System. An expert consensus document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT), the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging (NASCI). J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2016;10(4):269-281.
40. Wykrzykowska JJ, Mintz GS, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. Longitudinal distribution of plaque burden and necrotic core-rich plaques in nonculprit lesions of patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5(3) (suppl):S10-S18.
41. Lansky AJ, Ng VG, Maehara A, et al. Gender and the extent of coronary atherosclerosis, plaque composition, and clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndromes. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5(3)(suppl):S62-S72.
42. Chandrasekhar J, Mehran R. Sex-based differences in acute coronary syndromes: Insights from invasive and noninvasive coronary technologies. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9(4): 451-464.
43. Ruiz-Garciá J, Lerman A,Weisz G, et al. Ageand gender-related changes in plaque composition in patients with acute coronary syndrome: The PROSPECT study. EuroIntervention. 2012;8(8):929-938.
44. Nicholls SJ,Wolski K, Sipahi I, et al. Rate of progression of coronary atherosclerotic plaque in women. J AmColl Cardiol. 2007;49(14):1546-1551.
45. Pundziute G, Schuijf JD, van Velzen JE, et al. Assessment with multi-slice computed tomography and gray-scale and virtual histology intravascular ultrasound of gender-specific differences in extent and composition of coronary atherosclerotic plaques in relation to age. Am J Cardiol. 2010;105 (4):480-486.
46. Bharadwaj AS, Vengrenyuk Y, Yoshimura T, et al. Multimodality intravascular imaging to evaluate sex differences in plaque morphology in stable CAD. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9(4): 400-407.
47. Guagliumi G, Capodanno D, Saia F, et al; OCTAVIA Trial Investigators. Mechanisms of atherothrombosis and vascular response to primary percutaneous coronary intervention in women versus men with acutemyocardial infarction: Results of the OCTAVIA study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(9):958-968.
48. Chia S, Christopher Raffel O, Takano M, Tearney GJ, Bouma BE, Jang I-K. In-vivo comparison of coronary plaque characteristics using optical coherence tomography in women vs. men with acute coronary syndrome. Coron Artery Dis. 2007;18(6):423-427.
49. Wang L, Mintz GS, Witzenbichler B, et al. Differences in underlying culprit lesion morphology between men and women: An IVUS analysis from the ADAPT-DES study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9(4):498-499.