Evidence Hub

Coronary Plaque Characteristics Associated With Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Atherosclerotic Patients and Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

G. Gallone, M. Bellettini, Marco Gatti, D. Tore, F. Bruno, L. Scudeler, V. Cusenza, Antonio Lanfranchi et al.

JACC Cardiovascular Imaging, 2023

30,369 participants · 89 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The clinical value of high-risk coronary plaque characteristics (CPCs) to inform intensified medical therapy or revascularization of non-flow-limiting lesions remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the prognostic impact of CPCs on patient-level and lesion-level major cardiovascular adverse events (MACE).

METHODS

Thirty studies (21 retrospective, 9 prospective) with 30,369 patients evaluating the association of CPCs with MACE were included. CPCs included high plaque burden, low minimal lumen area, thin cap fibroatheroma, high lipid core burden index, low-attenuation plaque, spotty calcification, napkin ring sign, and positive remodeling.

RESULTS

CPCs were evaluated with the use of intracoronary modalities in 9 studies (optical coherence tomography in 4 studies, intravascular ultrasound imaging in 3 studies, and near-infrared spectroscopy intravascular ultrasound imaging in 2 studies) and by means of coronary computed tomographic angiography in 21 studies. CPCs significantly predicted patient-level and lesion-level MACE in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. For most CPCs, accuracy for MACE was modest to good at the patient level and moderate to good at the lesion level. Plaques with more than 1 CPC had the highest accuracy for lesion-level MACE (AUC: 0.87). Because the prevalence of CPCs among plaques was low, estimated positive predictive values for lesion-level MACE were modest. Results were mostly…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 30,369 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free