ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2023
Identification of Optical Coherence Tomography-Defined Coronary Plaque Erosion by Preprocedural Computed Tomography Angiography.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of CT-derived body composition with coronary plaque components and vascular inflammation.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2026Article
- Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Presenting with Acute Coronary Syndromes and Suspected Plaque Erosion Based on Clinical and Laboratory Criteria.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
- Uncovering Plaque Erosion: A Distinct Pathway in Acute Coronary Syndromes and a Gateway to Personalized Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Optical theranostics in ischemic heart disease: from molecular insights to clinical translation.Theranostics · 2025Review
- Coronary Plaque Erosion: Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background A previous coronary computed tomography (CT) angiographic study failed to discriminate optical coherence tomography-defined intact fibrous cap culprit lesions (IFC group) from those with ruptured fibrous caps (RFC group) in patients with coronary artery disease. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of preprocedural coronary CT imaging in identifying subsequently performed optical coherence tomography-defined plaque rupture or erosion at culprit lesions in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute myocardial infarction. Methods and Results This study used data from 2 recently published studies that tested the hypothesis that coronary CT angiography (CCTA) before percutaneous coronary intervention may provide diagnostic information on the high-risk atherosclerotic burden in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute myocardial infarction. In the analysis of 186 patients, optical coherence tomography identified 106 RFC plaques and 80 IFC plaques as the culprit lesions. On CT, the prevalence of low-attenuation plaque, positive remodeling, napkin-ring sign, and spotty calcification were all significantly lower in the IFC group. The culprit vessel pericoronary adipose tissue inflammation and coronary artery calcium scores were significantly lower in the IFC group than in the RFC group. The absence of low-attenuation plaque, napkin-ring sign, zero coronary artery calcium, and low pericoronary adipose tissue inflammation were independent predictors of IFC. When stratified into 5 subgroups according to the number of these 4 CT factors, the prevalence of IFC was 8.3%, 20.8%, 44.6%, 75.6%, and 100% (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.