Subscribe

Reply to the letter to the editor

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00594

Reply: Identifying vulnerable coronary atherosclerotic plaques: from theory to practice

David del Val1,2, MD, PhD; Fernando Alfonso1,2, MD, PhD; Elvin Kedhi3,4, MD, PhD; on behalf of the COMBINE OCT-FFR trial investigators

We sincerely appreciate Dr Dimitriadis and colleagues’ interest in our study1, which aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of vulnerable plaque features in predicting the incidence of the lesion-oriented composite endpoint in fractional flow reserve (FFR)-negative non-culprit lesions in patients with diabetes mellitus2. The authors have rightly highlighted the demonstrated benefit of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in plaque regression and stabilisation, which recent studies have associated with reduced adverse outcomes3. Although we share the authors’ enthusiasm for these potent cholesterol-lowering therapies, it is important to note that the first PCSK9 inhibitors (alirocumab and evolocumab) received European Commission approval for reducing cardiovascular risk in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in 2018 and 2019, respectively. However, our study analysed patients enrolled between 2015 and 2018, a period preceding the widespread use of these therapies. Currently, the COMBINE-INTERVINE randomised trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05333068) is enrolling patients and will likely include a substantial proportion of patients receiving novel low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-lowering pharmacotherapies, such as PCSK9 inhibitors and therapies based on small interfering ribonucleic acid technology. We are convinced that this ongoing trial will provide novel insights into the role of these therapies in reducing adverse events in patients with FFR-negative non-culprit lesions.

The authors suggest that clinical presentation at the index procedure could be a predictor of outcomes, which is a reasonable hypothesis. However, our study sought to determine the risk of lesion-oriented adverse events based exclusively on morphological plaque features assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT), irrespective of clinical presentation. Nonetheless, a previous analysis of the COMBINE OCT-FFR trial demonstrated that thin-cap fibroatheroma (TCFA) and myocardial infarction at presentation were independent predictors of major adverse cardiovascular events4.

Importantly, the authors also mention the potential interplay between FFR-derived pullback pressure gradient (PPG) and plaque vulnerability. A single study involving 117 patients (120 vessels) has shown a higher plaque burden and a greater prevalence of TCFA in patients with focal, compared to diffuse, coronary artery disease, as determined by the median PPG value5. This intriguing study was published very recently, after our study was completed, and exclusively assessed patients with stable coronary artery disease and FFR-positive (FFR ≤0.80) lesions. Although we did not systematically assess PPG, we fully agree with the authors that future research should focus on integrating coronary physiology and morphological plaque characteristics to better identify high-risk lesions and provide further insights in this exciting field.

Our study aimed to develop a risk score for identifying patients at higher risk of long-term adverse events. Despite being aware of the limitations, we suggest that patients with a high risk according to this score may benefit from a more aggressive strategy, either invasive or pharmacological. The PREVENT study recently demonstrated the superiority of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in reducing major adverse events arising from highly vulnerable plaques, compared to optimal medical therapy alone. However, it is important to highlight that very few patients were included in this trial based on OCT-detected adverse plaque features, and patients receiving novel potent LDL-lowering treatments were underrepresented6. Therefore, further dedicated randomised trials are warranted to evaluate the benefit of preventive PCI in the context of contemporary pharmacotherapies.

Conflict of interest statement

E. Kedhi reports personal lecture and advisory fees and institutional research grants from Abbott and Medtronic, outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


References

Volume 20 Number 16
Aug 19, 2024
Volume 20 Number 16
View full issue


Key metrics

Suggested by Cory

Editorial

10.4244/EIJ-E-24-00066 Jan 6, 2025
Managing the device-related risk of in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis in coronary stenting
Lassen J and Jensen L
free

Jan 15, 2010
Triple therapy: the future or from the past?
Dewilde W et al
free

10.4244/EIJV13I16A304 Mar 20, 2018
STEMI – are we there yet?
Gershlick A
free

Expert review

10.4244/EIJ-D-19-01124 Apr 17, 2020
The year in review: coronary interventions
Gao C et al
free

10.4244/EIJV9I6A125 Oct 25, 2013
Mislabelled table entries in ADVISE Registry by Petraco and colleagues
Johnson NP et al
free
Trending articles
69.996

10.4244/EIJV13I12A217 Dec 8, 2017
Swimming against the tide: insights from the ORBITA trial
Al-Lamee R and Francis D
free
59.65

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00066 Apr 21, 2025
Management of complications after valvular interventions
Bansal A et al
free
57.6

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00386 Feb 3, 2025
Mechanical circulatory support for complex, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention
Ferro E et al
free
38.75

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00912 Oct 7, 2024
Optical coherence tomography to guide percutaneous coronary intervention
Almajid F et al
free
15.85

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-01050 Jul 15, 2024
Durability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Ternacle J et al
free
Chat with Cory
Hello , I'm Cory and I will do my best to answer your questions about this article. Please remember that this is an experimental feature, and that I'm still learning.
What is the main focus of this study?
What are the limitations of this study?
What are the next steps for research in this area?
What are the potential conflicts of interest among the authors?
X

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

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 7.6
2023 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2024)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2025 Europa Group - All rights reserved