Comparison of post‐stent optical coherence tomography findings among three subtypes of calcified culprit plaques in patients with acute coronary syndrome

Objectives To compare the postprocedural optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings and in‐hospital outcomes among the three subtypes of calcified plaques: eruptive calcified nodules, superficial calcific sheet, and calcified protrusion. Background Recently, three subtypes of calcified culprit plaq...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions 2021-03, Vol.97 (4), p.634-645
Hauptverfasser: Nakajima, Akihiro, Araki, Makoto, Kurihara, Osamu, Minami, Yoshiyasu, Soeda, Tsunenari, Yonetsu, Taishi, Crea, Filippo, Takano, Masamichi, Higuma, Takumi, Kakuta, Tsunekazu, Adriaenssens, Tom, Lee, Hang, Nakamura, Sunao, Jang, Ik‐Kyung
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives To compare the postprocedural optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings and in‐hospital outcomes among the three subtypes of calcified plaques: eruptive calcified nodules, superficial calcific sheet, and calcified protrusion. Background Recently, three subtypes of calcified culprit plaques were reported in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). How these subtypes respond to stenting is unknown. Methods ACS patients with calcified plaque at the culprit lesion were selected from our database. OCT findings at baseline and after stent implantation were compared. Results In the final analysis, 87 cases were included. Preprocedural OCT showed eruptive calcified nodules in 19 (21.8%) cases, superficial calcific sheet in 63 (72.4%), and calcified protrusion in 5 (5.7%). Stent edge dissection (SED) and incomplete stent apposition (ISA) were frequently observed in the eruptive calcified nodules group compared to superficial calcific sheet or calcified protrusion (SED; 47.4% vs. 17.5% vs. 20.0%; p = .032, ISA; 94.7% vs. 58.7% vs. 0.0%; p 
ISSN:1522-1946
1522-726X
DOI:10.1002/ccd.28847