Atherosclerosis laboratory findings
|
Atherosclerosis Microchapters |
|
Diagnosis |
|---|
|
Treatment |
|
ACC/AHA Guideline Recommendations |
|
Case Studies |
|
Atherosclerosis laboratory findings On the Web |
|
American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Atherosclerosis laboratory findings |
|
Risk calculators and risk factors for Atherosclerosis laboratory findings |
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]
Overview
Cardiac stress testing, traditionally the most commonly performed non-invasive testing method for blood flow limitations generally only detects lumen narrowing of ~75% or greater, although some physicians advocate that nuclear stress methods can detect as little as 50%.
Laboratory Findings
Areas of severe narrowing, stenosis, detectable by angiography, and to a lesser extent "stress testing" have long been the focus of human diagnostic techniques for cardiovascular disease, in general. However, these methods focus on detecting only severe narrowing, not the underlying atherosclerosis disease. As demonstrated by human clinical studies, most severe events occur in locations with heavy plaque, yet little or no lumen narrowing present before debilitating events suddenly occur. Plaque rupture can lead to artery lumen occlusion within seconds to minutes, and potential permanent debility and sometimes sudden death.
Greater than 75% lumen stenosis used to be considered by cardiologists as the hallmark of clinically significant disease because it is typically only at this severity of narrowing of the larger heart arteries that recurring episodes of angina and detectable abnormalities by stress testing methods are seen. However, clinical trials have shown that only about 14% of clinically-debilitating events occur at locations with this, or greater severity of narrowing. The majority of events occur due to atheroma plaque rupture at areas without narrowing sufficient enough to produce any angina or stress test abnormalities. Thus, since the later-1990s, greater attention is being focused on the "vulnerable plaque".
Though any artery in the body can be involved, usually only severe narrowing or obstruction of some arteries, those that supply more critically-important organs are recognized. Obstruction of arteries supplying the heart muscle result in a heart attack. Obstruction of arteries supplying the brain result in a stroke. These events are life-changing, and often result in irreversible loss of function because lost heart muscle and brain cells do not grow back to any significant extent, typically less than 2%.
Over the last couple of decades, methods other than angiography and stress-testing have been increasingly developed as ways to better detect atherosclerotic disease before it becomes symptomatic. These have included both (a) anatomic detection methods and (b) physiologic measurement methods.
Examples of anatomic methods include:
(1) Coronary calcium scoring by CT,
(2) Carotid IMT (intimal medial thickness) measurement by ultrasound, and
(3) IVUS.
Examples of physiologic methods include:
(1) Lipoprotein subclass analysis,
(2) HbA1c,
(3) Hs-CRP, and
(4) Homocysteine.
The example of the metabolic syndrome combines both anatomic (abdominal girth) and physiologic (blood pressure, elevated blood glucose) methods.
Advantages of these two approaches: The anatomic methods directly measure some aspect of the actual atherosclerotic disease process itself, thus offer potential for earlier detection, including before symptoms start, disease staging and tracking of disease progression. The physiologic methods are often less expensive and safer and changing them for the better may slow disease progression, in some cases with marked improvement.
Disadvantages of these two approaches: The anatomic methods are generally more expensive and several are invasive, such as IVUS. The physiologic methods do not quantify the current state of the disease or directly track progression. For both, clinicians and third party payers have been slow to accept the usefulness of these newer approaches.