What Is an Appropriate Reference Standard in the Quantitation of Plaque Surface Area by Intravascular Coronary Ultrasound?

Abstract

We reevaluate the predictive accuracy of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-derived per cent plaque area stenosis (PAS) in significant coronary lesions (CLs) with or without proximal and distal reference vessel area adjustment. IVUS is valuable in defining moderate CL severity (30 to 70%) in left main (LM) or non-left main (NLM) coronaries using minimum luminal area (MLA) of ≤5.9 and ≤4 mm², respectively. Despite a strong correlation with severe CLs, PAS (≥ 70% for NLM and ≥67% for LM) remains underutilized because of confusion about an appropriate reference standard. We studied 120 patients with symptomatic moderate CLs (74 NLM, 46 LM) who underwent IVUS. In-lesion and adjusted PAS were derived by subtracting MLA from in-lesion and proximal or distal reference's external elastic membrane (EEM) area, respectively, divided by corresponding EEM area multiplied by 100. In-lesion PAS was correlated with MLA cutoffs of ≤5.9 and ≤7.5 mm² for LM and ≤4 mm² for NLM. Adjusted PAS strongly correlated with in-lesion PAS irrespective of reference segment (proximal reference, r = 0.879, p < 0.001; distal reference, r = 0.833, p < 0.001; mean proximal and distal reference, r = 0.896, p < 0.001). Considering MLA of ≤4 mm² (for NLM) and ≤5.9 mm² (for LM), in-lesion PAS of ≥70 and ≥67%, respectively, explained the majority of severe CLs but the sensitive LM MLA cutoff of ≤7.5 mm² showed higher predictive accuracy. Based on results, both in-lesion PAS and adjusted PAS can be used interchangeably and correlate strongly with MLA.

Keywords

intracoronary vascular ultrasound - per cent plaque area stenosis - coronary artery disease - minimum luminal area

• References

• 1 Tobis J, Azarbal B, Slavin L. Assessment of intermediate severity coronary lesions in the catheterization laboratory. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49 (8) 839-848
• 2 Abizaid A, Mintz GS, Pichard AD , et al. Clinical, intravascular ultrasound, and quantitative angiographic determinants of the coronary flow reserve before and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol 1998; 82 (4) 423-428
• 3 Abizaid AS, Mintz GS, Mehran R , et al. Long-term follow-up after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty was not performed based on intravascular ultrasound findings: importance of lumen dimensions. Circulation 1999; 100 (3) 256-261
• 4 Magni V, Chieffo A, Colombo A. Evaluation of intermediate coronary stenosis with intravascular ultrasound and fractional flow reserve: its use and abuse. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 73 (4) 441-448
• 5 Leesar MA, Masden R, Jasti V. Physiological and intravascular ultrasound assessment of an ambiguous left main coronary artery stenosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2004; 62 (3) 349-357
• 6 Jasti V, Ivan E, Yalamanchili V , et al. Correlations between fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound in patients with an ambiguous left main coronary artery stenosis. Circulation 2004; 110: 2831-2836
• 7 Nishioka T, Amanullah AM, Luo H , et al. Clinical validation of intravascular ultrasound imaging for assessment of coronary stenosis severity: comparison with stress myocardial perfusion imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 33 (7) 1870-1878
• 8 Briguori C, Anzuini A, Airoldi F , et al. Intravascular ultrasound criteria for the assessment of the functional significance of intermediate coronary artery stenoses and comparison with fractional flow reserve. Am J Cardiol 2001; 87 (2) 136-141
• 9 Takagi A, Tsurumi Y, Ishii Y, Suzuki K, Kawana M, Kasanuki H. Clinical potential of intravascular ultrasound for physiological assessment of coronary stenosis: relationship between quantitative ultrasound tomography and pressure-derived fractional flow reserve. Circulation 1999; 100 (3) 250-255
• 10 Kang SJ, Lee JY, Ahn JM , et al. Validation of intravascular ultrasound-derived parameters with fractional flow reserve for assessment of coronary stenosis severity. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 4 (1) 65-71
• 11 Kern MJ. Use and abuse of IVUS and FFR by Magni V et al. or why you shouldn't believe the saying, “if you want to treat, use IVUS. If you don't, use FFR”. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 74 (5) 811-813, author reply 814
• 12 Fassa AA, Wagatsuma K, Higano ST , et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided treatment for angiographically indeterminate left main coronary artery disease: a long-term follow-up study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45 (2) 204-211
• 13 Mintz GS, Nissen SE, Anderson WD , et al. American College of Cardiology clinical expert consensus document on standards for acquisition, measurement and reporting of intravascular ultrasound studies (IVUS). A report of the American College of Cardiology task force on clinical expert consensus documents. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37 (5) 1478-1492
• 14 Ben-Dor I, Dekissa T, Bui AB , et al. Fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound relationship in intermediate coronary artery stenosis (abstr). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 77 (Suppl) S67
• 15 Tonino PAL, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH , et al; FAME Study Investigators. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009; 360 (3) 213-224
• 16 Bech GJ, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH , et al. Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: a randomized trial. Circulation 2001; 103 (24) 2928-2934