Faxon, D.P.

From vulnerable plaque to vulnerable patient: a call for new definitions and risk assessment strategies: Part II. (Article)

2003-10-14T00:00:00Z

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease results in >19 million deaths annually, and coronary heart disease accounts for the majority of this toll. Despite major advances in treatment of coronary heart disease patients, a large number of victims of the disease who are apparently healthy die suddenly without prior symptoms. Available screening and diagnostic methods are insufficient to identify the victims before the event occurs. The recognition of the role of the vulnerable plaque has opened new avenues of opportunity in the field of cardiovascular medicine. This consensus document concludes the following. (1) Rupture-prone plaques are not the only vulnerable plaques. All types of atherosclerotic plaques with high likelihood of thrombotic complications and rapid progression should be considered as vulnerable plaques. We propose a classification for clinical as well as pathological evaluation of vulnerable plaques. (2) Vulnerable plaques are not the only culprit factors for the development of acute coronary syndromes, myocardial infarction, and sudden cardiac death. Vulnerable blood (prone to thrombosis) and vulnerable myocardium (prone to fatal arrhythmia) play an important role in the outcome. Therefore, the term "vulnerable patient" may be more appropriate and is proposed now for the identification of subjects with high likelihood of developing cardiac events in the near future. (3) A quantitative method for cumulative risk assessment of vulnerable patients needs to be developed that may include variables based on plaque, blood, and myocardial vulnerability. In Part I of this consensus document, we cover the new definition of vulnerable plaque and its relationship with vulnerable patients. Part II of this consensus document will focus on vulnerable blood and vulnerable myocardium and provide an outline of overall risk assessment of vulnerable patients. Parts I and II are meant to provide a general consensus and overviews the new field of vulnerable patient. Recently developed assays (eg, C-reactive protein), imaging techniques (eg, CT and MRI), noninvasive electrophysiological tests (for vulnerable myocardium), and emerging catheters (to localize and characterize vulnerable plaque) in combination with future genomic and proteomic techniques will guide us in the search for vulnerable patients. It will also lead to the development and deployment of new therapies and ultimately to reduce the incidence of acute coronary syndromes and sudden cardiac death. We encourage healthcare policy makers to promote translational research for screening and treatment of vulnerable patients.

From vulnerable plaque to vulnerable patient: a call for new definitions and risk assessment strategies: Part I. (Article)

2003-10-07T00:00:00Z

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease results in >19 million deaths annually, and coronary heart disease accounts for the majority of this toll. Despite major advances in treatment of coronary heart disease patients, a large number of victims of the disease who are apparently healthy die suddenly without prior symptoms. Available screening and diagnostic methods are insufficient to identify the victims before the event occurs. The recognition of the role of the vulnerable plaque has opened new avenues of opportunity in the field of cardiovascular medicine. This consensus document concludes the following. (1) Rupture-prone plaques are not the only vulnerable plaques. All types of atherosclerotic plaques with high likelihood of thrombotic complications and rapid progression should be considered as vulnerable plaques. We propose a classification for clinical as well as pathological evaluation of vulnerable plaques. (2) Vulnerable plaques are not the only culprit factors for the development of acute coronary syndromes, myocardial infarction, and sudden cardiac death. Vulnerable blood (prone to thrombosis) and vulnerable myocardium (prone to fatal arrhythmia) play an important role in the outcome. Therefore, the term "vulnerable patient" may be more appropriate and is proposed now for the identification of subjects with high likelihood of developing cardiac events in the near future. (3) A quantitative method for cumulative risk assessment of vulnerable patients needs to be developed that may include variables based on plaque, blood, and myocardial vulnerability. In Part I of this consensus document, we cover the new definition of vulnerable plaque and its relationship with vulnerable patients. Part II of this consensus document focuses on vulnerable blood and vulnerable myocardium and provide an outline of overall risk assessment of vulnerable patients. Parts I and II are meant to provide a general consensus and overviews the new field of vulnerable patient. Recently developed assays (eg, C-reactive protein), imaging techniques (eg, CT and MRI), noninvasive electrophysiological tests (for vulnerable myocardium), and emerging catheters (to localize and characterize vulnerable plaque) in combination with future genomic and proteomic techniques will guide us in the search for vulnerable patients. It will also lead to the development and deployment of new therapies and ultimately to reduce the incidence of acute coronary syndromes and sudden cardiac death. We encourage healthcare policy makers to promote translational research for screening and treatment of vulnerable patients.

Restenosis, reocclusion and adverse cardiovascular events after successful balloon angioplasty of occluded versus nonoccluded coronary arteries. Results from the Multicenter American Research Trial With Cilazapril After Angioplasty to Prevent Transluminal Coronary Obstruction and Restenosis (MARCATOR). (Article)

1996-01-01T00:00:00Z

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the frequency of restenosis, reocclusion and adverse cardiovascular events after angioplasty of occluded versus nonoccluded coronary arteries. BACKGROUND: Angioplasty of chronically occluded coronary arteries is believed to be associated with a higher frequency of restenosis and reocclusion than angioplasty of subtotal stenoses. Whether this leads to adverse cardiovascular events is unknown. METHODS: The Multicenter American Research Trial With Cilazapril After Angioplasty to Prevent Restenosis (MARCATOR) was a placebo-controlled trial with angiographic follow-up to determine the effect of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor cilazapril on the frequency of restenosis. In this trial, restenosis was defined as 1) angiographic reduction of minimal lumen diameter > or = 0.72 mm between angioplasty and the follow-up visit; and 2) > 50% diameter stenosis on the follow-up angiogram. We identified 139 patients with successful angioplasty of a coronary occlusion (Group 1) and compared the frequency of restenosis, reocclusion and adverse cardiovascular events with that in 1,295 patients with successful angioplasty of a subtotal stenosis (Group 2). RESULTS: Restenosis occurred in 36 patients with occluded arteries (29%) versus 264 with nonoccluded arteries (23%, p = 0.177) by definition 1 and in 62 patients with occluded arteries (49%) versus 478 with nonoccluded arteries (42%, p = 0.119) by definition 2. Occlusion was present in 24 Group 1 patients (19%) compared with 74 Group 2 patients (7%) (p < 0.001). During the 6 month follow-up period, two Group 1 patients (1.4%) and six Group 2 patients (0.5%) died; no Group 1 patients and 10 Group 2 patients (0.8%) developed severe congestive heart failure; nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in 4 Group 1 patients (2.9%) and 31 Group 2 patients (2.4%); repeat coronary angioplasty or bypass surgery was performed in 29 Group 1 patients (21%) and 232 Group 2 patients (18%); and angina was present in 18 Group 1 and 163 Group 2 patients (13% for both). Eighty-six Group 1 patients (62%) and 853 Group 2 patients (66%) remained free of these adverse events during the 6-month follow-up period (p = 0.513). CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of restenosis was slightly but not significantly greater after successful angioplasty of an occluded artery than after angioplasty of a subtotal stenosis. Although reocclusion was more frequent, occurring in 19% of patients, the net clinical benefit of angioplasty in such patients was similar to that in patients with subtotal stenoses over the 6-month follow-up period.