Debate

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-E-24-00004

Prophylactic stenting of vulnerable plaques: pros and cons

Duk-Woo Park1, MD, PhD; Hoyun Kim1, MD; Ayesha Singh2, MD; David L. Brown2,3, MD, PhD
Introduction

The majority of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are caused by the rupture or erosion of coronary atherosclerotic plaques. In patients with myocardial infarction (MI), recurrent events tend to accrue despite the implementation of secondary prevention measures, which mainly consist of pharmacotherapy. During the last decade, advances in intravascular imaging (i.e., intravascular ultrasound [IVUS], optical coherence tomography [OCT], and near-infrared spectroscopy [NIRS]) led to the identification of morphological features that define “vulnerable plaques” and are linked to higher rates of cardiovascular events. It has been hypothesised that preventive stenting might passivate these lesions, preventing the occurrence of plaque-related acute coronary syndromes. However, stenting can be also associated with adverse outcomes, and no solid evidence is currently available on its use in this sort of “primary prevention” setting. As such, the optimal management of vulnerable plaques has not been established so far and is currently a matter of debate.

Pros

Duk-Woo Park, MD, PhD; Hoyun Kim, MD

Thrombosis of lipid-rich thin-capped atherosclerotic lesions (“vulnerable plaques” [VP]) is the cause of most ACS and unexpected sudden cardiac deaths1. VP are often non-flow...

Sign in to read
the full article

Forgot your password?
No account yet?
Sign up for free!

Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from PCRonline.com

Volume 20 Number 5
Mar 4, 2024
Volume 20 Number 5
View full issue


Key metrics

On the same subject

Viewpoint

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00397 Oct 21, 2022
Skating on thin ice: searching for vulnerable plaques
Prati F et al
free

Editorial

10.4244/EIJ-E-22-00051 Jan 23, 2023
What makes a plaque rupture? A simple answer seems too much to ask for
Achenbach S
free

10.4244/EIJV15I9A138 Oct 4, 2019
Ruptured and healed atherosclerotic plaques: breaking bad?
Amabile N and Veugeois A
free

10.4244/EIJV14I6A109 Aug 24, 2018
Acute coronary syndromes: time to go further
Gonzalo N
free
Trending articles
338.63

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00904 Apr 1, 2022
Antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention
Angiolillo D et al
free
295.45

Expert consensus

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00898 Sep 20, 2022
Intravascular ultrasound guidance for lower extremity arterial and venous interventions
Secemsky E et al
free
226.03

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00426 Dec 3, 2021
Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary artery disease
Lindahl B et al
free
209.5

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-01034 Jun 3, 2022
Management of in-stent restenosis
Alfonso F et al
free
168.4

Expert review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00690 May 15, 2022
Crush techniques for percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions
Moroni F et al
free
149.43

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00776 Apr 3, 2023
Computed tomographic angiography in coronary artery disease
Serruys PW et al
free
103.48

Expert consensus

10.4244/EIJ-E-22-00018 Dec 4, 2023
Definitions and Standardized Endpoints for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations
Lunardi M et al
free
X

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 6.2
2022 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2023)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2024 Europa Group - All rights reserved