PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

E Pomerantsev

Publications and source records attributed to E Pomerantsev.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Coronary artery distensibility and compensatory vessel enlargement--a novel parameter influencing vascular remodeling?

Vascular remodeling implies the concept of compensatory vessel enlargement to preserve luminal dimensions during atheromatous plaque development. However, negative remodeling, i.e. vessel shrinkage in response to plaque accumulation has also been described. So far, the factors influencing positive or negative remodeling are uncertain. We hypothesized that vascular distensibility, a measure of vessel compliance, is related to compensatory enlargement. In 58 patients undergoing intravascular ultrasound interrogation of a de novo lesion prior to coronary intervention, the cross-sectional vessel area (VA), lumen area (LA) and plaque area (PA = VA minus LA) were measured at end diastole and end systole at the lesion site and at the proximal and distal reference segments. Positive remodeling was defined to be present when the VA at the lesion was > 1.05 times larger than that at the proximal reference (group A), negative remodeling when the VA at the lesion was < 0.95 of the reference site (group C) and in-between was considered to be intermediate (group B). Vessel compliance was measured by calculating vascular distensibility. Results showed a similar LA at the lesion site in all groups (4.18+/-2.18 vs. 4.36+/-1.19 vs. 3.74+/-1.81 mm2, NS) while VA and PA were significantly larger in group A (17.19+/-5.08 vs. 14.22+/-3.66 and 12.45+/-4.82 mm2, p = 0.005 and 13+/-4.55 vs. 9.95+/-3.58 and 8.7+/-3.83, p = 0.003, respectively). Vascular distensibility at the proximal reference segment was significantly greater in group A (3.55+/-2.67 vs. 1.25+/-1.03 and 0.85+/-0.73 mmHg(-1), p < 0.001) with a positive correlation between remodeling and distensibility (R = 0.52, p < 0.001). In a multiple regression model including clinical and lesional factors, distensibility was the only predictor of remodeling. In conclusion, these results suggest that compensatory vessel enlargement occurs to a greater degree in patients with increased coronary artery distensibility, which appears to be a predictor for positive remodeling.

Adaptation, Physiological↗
PubMed2000

Coronary artery compliance and adaptive vessel remodelling in patients with stable and unstable coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that patients with unstable coronary syndromes show accentuated compensatory vessel enlargement compared with patients with stable angina, and that this may in part be related to increased coronary artery distensibility. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: In 23 patients with unstable coronary syndromes (10 with non-Q wave myocardial infarction and 13 with unstable angina), the culprit lesion was investigated by intravascular ultrasound before intervention. The vessel cross sectional area (VA), lumen area (LA), and plaque area (VA minus LA) were measured at end diastole and end systole at the lesion site and at the proximal and distal reference segments. Similar measurements were made in 23 patients with stable angina admitted during the same period and matched for age, sex, and target vessel. Calculations were made of remodelling index (VA at lesion site / VA at reference site), distensibility index ([(delta A/A)/delta P] x 10(3), where delta A is the luminal area change in systole and diastole and delta P the difference in systolic and diastolic blood pressure measured at the tip of the guiding catheter during a cardiac cycle), and stiffness index beta ([ln(P(sys)/P(dias))]/(delta D/D), where P(sys) is systolic pressure, P(dias) is diastolic pressure, and delta D is the difference between systolic and diastolic lumen diameters). Positive remodelling was defined as when the VA at the lesion was > 1.05 times larger than at the proximal reference site, and negative remodelling when the VA at the lesion was < 0.95 of the reference site. RESULTS: Mean (SD) LA at the lesion site was similar in both groups (4.03 (1.8) v 4.01 (1. 93) mm(2)), while plaque area was larger in the unstable group (13. 29 (4.04) v 8.34 (3.6) mm(2), p < 0.001). Remodelling index was greater in the unstable group (1.14 (0.18) v 0.83 (0.15), p < 0.001). Positive remodelling was observed in 15 patients in the unstable group (65%) but in only two (9%) in the stable group (p < 0.001). Negative remodelling occurred only in two patients with unstable symptoms (9%) but in 17 (74%) with stable symptoms. At the proximal reference segment, the difference in LA between systole and diastole was 0.99 (0.66) mm(2) in the unstable group and 0.39 (0.3) mm(2) in the stable group (p < 0.001), and the calculated coronary artery distensibility was 3.09 (2.69) and 0.94 (0.83) per mm Hg in unstable and stable patients, respectively (p < 0.001). The stiffness index beta was lower in patients with unstable angina (1.95 (0.94) v 3.1 (0.96), p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compensatory vessel enlargement occurs to a greater degree in patients with unstable than with stable coronary syndromes, and is associated with increased coronary artery distensibility.

Aged↗