\
/ Measurement Parameters / Comparision groups / Ruptured / Vulnerable / Stable / nFibrous Cap
Virmani et al / Pathology / FC thickness in µ / PR vs TCFA / 23± 19 / <65 / PR=25, TCFA=15
Cheruvu et al 1 / Pathology / FC thickness in µ / PR vs TCFA vs FC ≥ 100 µ / 0 (By definition) / 44±18 / 232±135 / PR=19, TCFA=23, FC ≥ 100 µ=147
Kubo et al 2 / OCT / FC thickness in µ / PR only / 49± 21 / AMI=30
Jang et al / OCT / FC thickness in µ / AMI vs UAP/NSTEMI vs SAP / 47.0(AMI), 53.8(UAP/ NSTEMI) / 102.6. / AMI=20, UAP/NSTEMI=20, SAP=17
Ge et al 3 / IVUS / FC thickness in µ / PR vs NPR / 470± 200 mm / 960 ± 940mm / RP= 31, NPR=108
Plaque Area
Virmani et al / Pathology / % CSVAN / RP vs VP / >50% CSVAV in 78% / >50% CSAVN in 63% / NA
Cheruvu et al / Pathology / Length of FC in mm / PR vs TCFA vs FC ≥ 100 µ / 4.2± 2.7 / 5.4±2.8 / 6.3± 3.5 / PR=19, TCFA=23, FC ≥ 100 µ=147
Sano et al 4 / IVUS / CSVAN in mm2 / ACS vs SAP / 8.0 ± 2.0 / 7.5±2.4 / ACS=10,SAP=143
Ehara et al / IVUS / CSVAN in mm2 / AMI vs UAP vs SAP / AMI-14.9± 5.9, UAP-11.6± 4.5 / SAP-11.3±4.8 / AMI=61, UAP=70, SAP=47
Rodrguez et al5 / IVUS / % CSVAN / RP vs NRP / 40.7± 7.6 / 33.7± 8.4 / RP=20, NRP=20
Yamagishi et al / IVUS / % CSVAN / ACS vs SAP / 67± 9 / 57+-12 / ACS=12, SAP=90
Higashikuni et al6 / IVUS / % CSVAN / .+ReM vs -ReM / 22.5± 10.3 / 10.4± 6.6 / .+ReM = 24, -ReM =16
Hoffman et al / MDCT / mm2 / ACS vs SAP / 17.5± 5.9 / 13.5± 10.7 / ACS=14, SA=13
Necrotic core
Cheruvu et al / Pathology / NC Area(mm2) / PR vs TCFA vs FC ≥ 100 µ / 2.2±1.9 / 1.6± 1.8 / 1.1±1.4 / PR=19, TCFA=23, FC ≥ 100 µ=147
Pathology / NC Length(mm2) / PR vs TCFA vs FC ≥ 100 µ / 1.9± 3.6 / 2.7±2.0 / Not available / PR=19, TCFA=23, FC ≥ 100 µ=147
Burke et al / Pathology / NC Area(mm2) / PR vs TCFA vs SP / 3.8± 5.5 / 1.7± 1.1 / 1.2±2.2 / RP=25, TCFA=15, SP=19
Kolodgie et al7 / Pathology / NC Area(mm2) / TCFA vs SP / 1.95±0.30 / 0.51± 0.06 / VP=52, SP=184
Virmani et al / Pathology / NC Area(%) / PR vs TCFA vs SP / 34± 17 / 24± 17 % / 12± 25 / RP=25, TCFA=15, SP=19
Varnava et al8 / Pathology / NC Area(%) / .+ReM vs -ReM / 39.0±21.0% / 22.3±23.1% / .+ReM = 64, -ReM=44
Nasu et al 9 / Pathology / NC Area(%) / ACS vs SAP / 22.6 / 12.5 / ACS=15, SAP=15 pt
Sano et al 4 / IVUS / NC Area(%) / ACS vs SAP / 72± 10 / 50± 16 / ACS=10, SAP=143
Rodrguez et al5 / IVUS / NC Area(%) / RP vs MLAP / 16.7(7.9-26.5) / 11.8(8.4-17.1) / RP=20, MLAP=28
Rodrguez et al10 / IVUS / NC Area(%) / .+ReM vs -ReM / 22.1(6.3) / 6.6(6.9) / Total n=41
Ge et al 3 / IVUS / NC Area(%) / RP vs NRP / 38.5± 17.1 / 11.2± 8.9 / RP= 31, NPR=108
Nasu et al 9 / IVUS-VH / NC Area(%) / ACS vs SAP / 24.5 / 10.4 / ACS=15 , SAP=15
Wang et al11 / NIRS / Lipid:protein ratio
λ=1620 to 1,820 nm / AHA-Type 5/6 vs AHA-Type 1/2 / 2.40 ± 0.44 / 0.57 ± 0.21 / AHA-Type 5/6=28, AHA-Type 1/2=42
/ λ= 2220 to 2330 nm / AHA-Type 5/6 vs AHA-Type 1/2 / 3.37 ± 0.88 / 1.49 ± 1.20 / AHA-Type 5/6=23, AHA-Type 1/2=34
Inflammation
Varnava et al8 / Pathology / Mean Ф count / .+ReM vs -ReM / 15.6±12.3 / 8.9±11.6 / .+ReM = 64, -ReM=44
Virmani et al / Pathology / % Ф infiltration of FC / PR vs TCFA vs SP / 26± 20 % / 14± 10 % / 3± 0.7 % / RP=25, TCFA=15, SP=19
Kolodgie et al7 / Pathology / Extent of Ф / TCFA vs SP / 0.142±0.016 / 0.025± 0.004 / VP=52, SP=313
Raffel et al 12 / OCT / Ф density in FC / TCFA vs non-TCFA (FC> 65 µ) / 7.4 / 4.99 / ACS=32 SAP=11
Ф density in FC / Lipid rich plaque (lipid + in ≥2 quad.) vs non-lipid rich plaques / 6.1 / 4.62 / ACS=32 SAP=11
Stefanadis et al13 / Thermography / ΔT [Plaque-Backgd] °C / AMI vs UAP vs SAP / AMI 1.472±0.691, UAP 0.683±0.347 / 0.106 ± 0.110°C / AMI=15, UAP=15, SAP=15
Spotty Calc
Ehara et al / IVUS / Average # of Ca deposits in arc<90° / AMI vs UAP vs SAP / AMI-1.4± 1.3, UAP-1.0± 1.1 / SAP-0.5±0.8 / AMI=61, UAP=70, SAP=47
Von Birgelen et al 14 / IVUS / Total arc of Ca in ° / RP vs SP / 44±55 / 79± 0.28 / RP=29, SP=29
Nakamura et al15 / IVUS / Plaque Ca in ° / AMI vs UAP vs SAP vs Old MI / AMI-23±18, UAP-33± 27 / SAP-54±32, Old MI- 73± 42 / AMI=22, UAP=32, SAP=51, Old MI= 20
Fujii et al16 / IVUS / Total arc of Ca in ° / PR vs MLAP / 36.6± 38.0 / 46.9±51.2 / RP=112, MLAP=NA
Motoyama et al / MDCT / Ca <3 mm / ACS vs SAP / 63% / 21% / ACS=38[STEMI=10, NSTEMI=9, UAP=19], SAP=33
Positive Remodeling
Sano et al4 / IVUS / RI / ACS vs SAP / 1.30± 0.08 / 1.16 ± 0.16 / ACS=10,SAP=143
Von Birgelen et al 14 / IVUS / RI / RP vs SP / 1.09± 0.13 / 0.93± 0.14 / RP=29, SP=29
Takano et al 17 / IVUS / RI / VP vs SP / 1.23± 0.28 / 0.86± 0.16 / VP=27, SP=11
Nakamura et al / IVUS / RI / AMI vs UAP vs SAP vs Old MI / AMI-1.26± 0.15, UAP-1.11± 0.10 / SAP- 0.94±0.11, Old MI 0.96 ± 0.13 / AMI=22, UAP=32, SAP=51, Old MI= 20
Hoffman et al / MDCT / RI / ACS vs SAP / 1.4± 0.3 / 1.2± 0.3 / ACS=14, SA=13
Imazeki et al 18 / MDCT / RI / ACS vs SAP / 1.19± 0.18 / 0.89± 0.10 / ACS=31 , SA=26
Motoyama et al / MDCT / RI / ACS vs SAP / 1.20± 0.17 / 0.96±0.12 / ACS=38[STEMI=10, NSTEMI=9, UAP=19], SAP=33
Vasa Vasorum
Fleiner et al / Pathology / V V/mm2 in peripheral vessels / Symptomatic vs Asymptomatic Coronary Atherosclerosis pts. / 33±2 / 25± 2 / Symptomatic pts=22, Asymptomatic pts=27
Virmani et al / Pathology / V V # / PR vs TCFA vs SP / 44± 22 / 26± 23 / 13±9 / RP=25, TCFA=15, SP=19
Hemorrhage
Kolodgie et al / Pathology / # IPH / PR vs SP / 5.0± 0.4 / 2.8± 0.8 / Patients n=100
Takaya et al / MRI / % Δ Plaque volume / IPH vs Control / 6.8± 7.9 / (-)0.15±5.1 / IPH=14, No IPH=15
% Δ NC / IPH vs Control / 28.4± 29.7 / (-)5.2± 17.3 / IPH=14, No IPH=15
PR= Plaque Rupture; TCFA=Thin Cap Fibrous Atheroma (<65 µ); NPR= Non Ruptured Plaque; NC= Necrotic Core; FC= Fibrous Cap; -ReM= Negative Remodeling (<0.95); +ReM= Positive Remodeling (>1.05) RI= Remodeling; IPH=Intra Plaque Hemorrhage; VP=Vulnerable Plaque; SP= Stable Plaque; ACS= Acute Coronary syndrome; AMI= Acute Myocardial Infarction; NSTEMI= Non ST segment elevation MI; UAP= Unstable Angina Pectoris; STEMI= ST segment elevation MI; CSVAN= Cross Section Vascular Area Narrowing; T= Temperature; TCFA=Thin Cap FibroAtheroma (<65 µ); µ= Micrometer; λ= Wavelength; Ф= Macrophages; Δ= Change; VV= Vasa Vasorum;
TARGETED PROCESS / TARGETS / TARGETING AGENT & LABEL / REFERENCES
Monocyte migration across intima
Reversible prelude with endothelium / Selectins, tried only for endothelium / Antibodies on microbubbles / Villaneueva et al
Receptors for chemotactic petides / MCP-1 / Radiolabeled MCP-1 / Ohtshuki et al. 19, Hartung et al
Activation-dependent receptors / ICAM or VCAM, tried in transplantation / Antibodies, radiolabeled or on microbubbles / Othani et al.20, Villaneuva et al.
Subintimal activation of monocytes
Lipid Scavenging receptors / SRA I, II / Oxidized LDL / Tsimikas and Shaw
FcgR-II / Radiolabeled nonspecific IgG or Fc fragments / Fischman et al
Other phagocytic receptors / PS receptor / PS-rich microbubbles / Vannan et al.
Others / Superparamagnetic iron; nanoparticulate CT contrast / Schmitz et al., Hyafil et al. 21
Immune activation / HLA expression, tried in transplantation / Radiolabeled antibody / Isobe et al.
Heightened metabolic activity / FDG / Positron-labeled FDG / Davies et al., Dunphy et al.22, Rogers et al23
Macrophage cell death
Cell membrane changes / PS expression / Annexin A5 / Kolodgie et al, Isobe et al 24, Kietsaelar et al.25
Cell death pathways / Caspase substrate, proposed / Radiolabeled DEVD sequence / Gupta et al
Collateral products from macrophages
Cytokines / Metalloproteinases / MMP inhibitor or substrate, radiolabeled or fluorochromes / Fujimoto et a., Deguchi et al. 26
Vasa vasorum, neovascularization / Integrins, avb3 / Radiolabeled RGD peptide / Oshima et al.
VEGF / Radiolabelked VEGFR2 / Oshima et al.
References
1. Cheruvu, P.K., et al. Frequency and distribution of thin-cap fibroatheroma and ruptured plaques in human coronary arteries: a pathologic study. J Am Coll Cardiol 50, 940-949 (2007).
2. Kubo, T., et al. Assessment of culprit lesion morphology in acute myocardial infarction: ability of optical coherence tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound and coronary angioscopy. J Am Coll Cardiol 50, 933-939 (2007).
3. Ge, J., et al. Screening of ruptured plaques in patients with coronary artery disease by intravascular ultrasound. Heart 81, 621-627 (1999).
4. Sano, K., et al. Assessment of vulnerable plaques causing acute coronary syndrome using integrated backscatter intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol 47, 734-741 (2006).
5. Rodriguez-Granillo, G.A., et al. Global characterization of coronary plaque rupture phenotype using three-vessel intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency data analysis. Eur Heart J 27, 1921-1927 (2006).
6. Higashikuni, Y., et al. Relationship between coronary artery remodeling and plaque composition in culprit lesions: an intravascular ultrasound radiofrequency analysis. Circ J 71, 654-660 (2007).
7. Kolodgie, F.D., et al. Intraplaque hemorrhage and progression of coronary atheroma. N Engl J Med 349, 2316-2325 (2003).
8. Varnava, A.M., Mills, P.G. & Davies, M.J. Relationship between coronary artery remodeling and plaque vulnerability. Circulation 105, 939-943 (2002).
9. Nasu, K., et al. Accuracy of in vivo coronary plaque morphology assessment: a validation study of in vivo virtual histology compared with in vitro histopathology. J Am Coll Cardiol 47, 2405-2412 (2006).
10. Rodriguez-Granillo, G.A., et al. Coronary artery remodelling is related to plaque composition. Heart 92, 388-391 (2006).
11. Wang, J., et al. Near-infrared spectroscopic characterization of human advanced atherosclerotic plaques. J Am Coll Cardiol 39, 1305-1313 (2002).
12. Raffel, O.C., et al. Relationship between a systemic inflammatory marker, plaque inflammation, and plaque characteristics determined by intravascular optical coherence tomography. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 27, 1820-1827 (2007).
13. Stefanadis, C., et al. Thermal heterogeneity within human atherosclerotic coronary arteries detected in vivo: A new method of detection by application of a special thermography catheter. Circulation 99, 1965-1971 (1999).
14. von Birgelen, C., et al. Plaque distribution and vascular remodeling of ruptured and nonruptured coronary plaques in the same vessel: an intravascular ultrasound study in vivo. J Am Coll Cardiol 37, 1864-1870 (2001).
15. Nakamura, M., et al. Impact of coronary artery remodeling on clinical presentation of coronary artery disease: an intravascular ultrasound study. J Am Coll Cardiol 37, 63-69 (2001).
16. Fujii, K., et al. Intravascular ultrasound profile analysis of ruptured coronary plaques. Am J Cardiol 98, 429-435 (2006).
17. Takano, M., et al. Mechanical and structural characteristics of vulnerable plaques: analysis by coronary angioscopy and intravascular ultrasound. J Am Coll Cardiol 38, 99-104 (2001).
18. Imazeki, T., et al. Evaluation of coronary artery remodeling in patients with acute coronary syndrome and stable angina by multislice computed tomography. Circ J 68, 1045-1050 (2004).
19. Ohtsuki, K., Hayase, M., Akashi, K., Kopiwoda, S. & Strauss, H.W. Detection of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 receptor expression in experimental atherosclerotic lesions: an autoradiographic study. Circulation 104, 203-208 (2001).
20. Ohtani, H., et al. Intercellular adhesion molecule-1 induction: a sensitive and quantitative marker for cardiac allograft rejection. J Am Coll Cardiol 26, 793-799 (1995).
21. Hyafil, F., et al. Noninvasive detection of macrophages using a nanoparticulate contrast agent for computed tomography. Nat Med 13, 636-641 (2007).
22. Dunphy, M.P., Freiman, A., Larson, S.M. & Strauss, H.W. Association of vascular 18F-FDG uptake with vascular calcification. J Nucl Med 46, 1278-1284 (2005).
23. Rogers IS, F.A., Nasir K, Vermylen D, Cury RC, Hoffman U, Fischman AJ, Brady TJ, Tawakol, A. Assessment of coronary segment inflammation with combined 18-FDG positron emission tomography and 64-slice multidetector computed tomography. . Circulation 116, II-410 (2007).
24. Isobe, S., et al. Noninvasive imaging of atherosclerotic lesions in apolipoprotein E-deficient and low-density-lipoprotein receptor-deficient mice with annexin A5. J Nucl Med 47, 1497-1505 (2006).
25. Kietselaer, B.L., et al. Noninvasive detection of plaque instability with use of radiolabeled annexin A5 in patients with carotid-artery atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med 350, 1472-1473 (2004).
26. Deguchi, J.O., et al. Inflammation in atherosclerosis: visualizing matrix metalloproteinase action in macrophages in vivo. Circulation 114, 55-62 (2006).
6