Impact of different definitions on the interpretation of coronary remodeling determined by intravascular ultrasound

• Published in: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions Vol. 65; no. 2; pp. 233 - 239
• Main Authors: Hibi, Kiyoshi, Ward, Michael R., Honda, Yasuhiro, Suzuki, Takeshi, Jeremias, Allen, Okura, Hiroyuki, Hassan, Ali H.M., Maehara, Akiko, Yeung, Alan C., Pasterkamp, Gerard, Fitzgerald, Peter J., Yock, Paul G.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company 01.06.2005
• Subjects: Aged; atherosclerosis; Coronary Artery Disease - diagnostic imaging; Coronary Artery Disease - physiopathology; coronary disease; Coronary Vessels - diagnostic imaging; Coronary Vessels - physiopathology; Female; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; Male; Middle Aged; Tunica Intima - diagnostic imaging; Tunica Intima - physiopathology; Tunica Media - diagnostic imaging; Tunica Media - physiopathology; ultrasonics; Ultrasonography, Interventional
• ISSN: 1522-1946; 1522-726X
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.20366

The objective of this study was to compare the categorizations and determinants related to remodeling by the three definitions commonly used. Several morphological and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) studies have demonstrated the fundamental importance of arterial remodeling in atherosclerosis. However, lack of consensus on how to define remodeling has led to conflicting analyses of factors that influence this process. Analysis of preinterventional IVUS images of 514 lesions in native coronary arteries was performed. Arterial remodeling was defined as outward by definition 1, when [cross‐sectional area (CSA) of the external elastic membrane (EEM) at the lesion site (EEMlesion)]/[EEM CSA either at the proximal (EEMprox ref) or distal (EEMdistal ref) reference site with the least amount of plaque] was > 1.05, intermediate when this ratio was between 0.95 and 1.05, and inward when < 0.95. Remodeling was defined as outward by definition 2 when EEMlesion > both EEMprox ref and EEMdistal ref, inward when EEMlesion < both EEMprox ref and EEMdistal ref, and intermediate when EEMlesion was intermediate between EEMprox ref and EEMdistal ref. By definition 3, vessel remodeling was defined as outward when EEMlesion > (EEMprox ref + EEMdistal ref)/2 and intermediate/inward when EEMlesion ≤ (EEMprox ref + EEMdistal ref)/2. The frequency of outward remodeling was significantly higher by definitions 1 and 3 than by definition 2, whereas a higher frequency of inward remodeling was observed in definition 1, resulting in significantly different remodeling distributions between the three definitions (P < 0.0001). By multivariate logistic analysis, the only clinical determinants related to outward remodeling was younger age, and only by definition 3. IVUS determinants varied significantly between the three definitions. The only consistent determinants among the three definitions were smaller lumen CSA at the reference site and larger plaque + media CSA at the lesion site. This study demonstrates the significant impact of different remodeling definitions on the incidence and determinants of remodeling patterns. The marked variability in categorization of remodeling underscores the importance of developing a standard methodology. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc