Jensen Lisette Okkels, Thayssen Per, Mintz Gary S, Egede Rasmus, Maeng Michael, Junker Anders, Galloee Anders, Christiansen Evald Hoej, Pedersen Knud Erik, Hansen Henrik Steen, Hansen Knud Noerregaard
Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Am J Cardiol. 2008 Mar 1;101(5):590-5. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.10.020. Epub 2008 Jan 14.
During percutaneous coronary intervention, the reference segment is assessed angiographically. This report described the discrepancy between angiographic and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) assessment of reference segment size in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Preintervention IVUS was used to study 62 de novo lesions in 41 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The lesion site was the image slice with the smallest lumen cross-sectional area (CSA). The proximal and distal reference segments were the most normal-looking segments within 5 mm proximal and distal to the lesion. Plaque burden was measured as plaque CSA/external elastic membrane (EEM) CSA. Using IVUS, the reference lumen diameter was 2.80 +/- 0.42 mm and the reference EEM diameter was 4.17 +/- 0.56 mm. The angiographic reference diameter was 2.63 +/- 0.36 mm. Mean difference between the IVUS EEM diameter and angiographic reference diameter was 1.56 +/- 0.55 mm. The mean difference between the IVUS reference lumen diameter and angiographic reference lumen diameter was 0.18 +/- 0.44 mm. Plaque burden in the reference segment correlated inversely with the difference between IVUS and quantitative coronary angiographic reference lumen diameter (slope = -0.12, 95% confidence interval -0.17 to -0.07, p <0.001), but it was not related to the absolute angiographic reference lumen diameter. Thus, reference segment diameters in type 2 diabetic patients were larger using IVUS than angiography, especially in the setting of larger plaque burden. In conclusion, these findings combined with inadequate remodeling may explain the angiographic appearance of small arteries in diabetic patients.
在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗期间,通过血管造影评估参考节段。本报告描述了2型糖尿病患者参考节段大小的血管造影评估与血管内超声(IVUS)评估之间的差异。使用干预前IVUS研究了41例2型糖尿病患者的62处初发病变。病变部位为管腔横截面积(CSA)最小的图像切片。近端和远端参考节段是病变近端和远端5 mm内外观最正常的节段。斑块负荷以斑块CSA/外弹力膜(EEM)CSA来衡量。使用IVUS,参考管腔直径为2.80±0.42 mm,参考EEM直径为4.17±0.56 mm。血管造影参考直径为2.63±0.36 mm。IVUS EEM直径与血管造影参考直径之间的平均差异为1.56±0.55 mm。IVUS参考管腔直径与血管造影参考管腔直径之间的平均差异为0.18±0.44 mm。参考节段中的斑块负荷与IVUS和定量冠状动脉造影参考管腔直径之间的差异呈负相关(斜率=-0.12,95%置信区间-0.17至-0.07,p<0.001),但与绝对血管造影参考管腔直径无关。因此,2型糖尿病患者使用IVUS时参考节段直径大于血管造影结果,尤其是在斑块负荷较大的情况下。总之,这些发现与重塑不足相结合,可能解释了糖尿病患者小动脉的血管造影表现。