JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Coll Cardiol, 2000; 35:262
© 2000 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ledru, F.
Right arrow Articles by Lespérance, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Ledru, F.
Right arrow Articles by Lespérance, J.

CORRESPONDENCE

Reply

Francois Ledru, MDa, Pierre Theroux, MDb and Jacques Lespérance, MDb

a Broussais Hospital, 96 Rue Didot, Paris, 75014 France
b Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, Canada


We read with interest the comments by Tousoulis and colleagues. They stressed the importance of coronary lesion morphology in predisposing to acute occlusion and myocardial infarction. Indeed, in our study (1), we also found a greater prevalence of border irregularity or ulceration in the 84 culprit as compared with the 291 nonculprit lesions (40% vs. 22%, p < 0.001). It was not mentioned in the published report, however, because this description is visual, subjective and highly dependent on the quality of the radiologic equipment and angiograms, and above all, the intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility in our experience is as low as 60%. Visual assessment of lesion eccentricity has the same limitations. We believe that such visually assessed variables should be analyzed cautiously.

We are also less optimistic than Tousoulis and colleagues in the ability of coronary angiography to identify potentially vulnerable lesions. Indeed, we found strong evidence that the symmetry index, the outflow angle and, to a lesser extent, the percent diameter severity separated future culprit stenoses from stable lesions within the following 36 months, using a univariate approach. However, use of various multivariate models to stratify the risk of individual stenoses and to predict the vulnerable lesion among stenoses of intermediate severity (40% to 70% diameter stenosis) yielded disappointing results, with positive predicting values (PPV) <50% (1). By contrast, stable lesions could be predicted with greater accuracy (PPV 87%). We infer that the occurrence of a future acute occlusion cannot be accurately predicted by angiography, even with the help of quantitative coronary analysis. We therefore certainly agree with Tousoulis and colleagues that use of other invasive or noninvasive techniques, such as those they mentioned, is mandatory to reach this goal and to help improve patient survival and care.


    References
 Top
 References
 

  1. Ledru F, Théroux T, Lespérance J, et al. Geometric features of coronary artery lesions favoring acute occlusion and myocardial infarction: a quantitative angiographic study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:1353–1361[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ledru, F.
Right arrow Articles by Lespérance, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Ledru, F.
Right arrow Articles by Lespérance, J.


HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK