Table 1.

Overview and comparison of different imaging methods in atherosclerotic plaque assessment (IMT: intima-media thickness; CVD: cardiovascular disease).

Imaging method	Plaque characterization	Advantages	Disadvantages	Published data from patients with SLE
Carotid ultrasound	IMT and plaque in carotid arteries	No radiation rapid-convenient correlates with risk of future CVD	Interpretation is operator dependent. High frequency of plaque in Patients with SLE (clinical implications unclear)	Yes [22, 23, 54, 55, 58]
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)	Structure of myocardium quantification of lipid content	No radiation more sensitive than echo for myocardial change	Expensive use of gadolinium limited in patients with renal impairment motion artefacts. Lower spatial resolution in vascular assessment. Longer length of study time	Yes [2, 13, 18, 30, 33–36]
Computed tomography (CT)	Quantification of calcium, fibrous and lipid component	Noninvasive detection of vulnerable plaques	Motion artefacts. Contraindicated in renal impairment Low resolution	Yes [17, 41, 42]
Intravascular ultrasound-based methods	Plaque volume Luminal and vessel dimensions calcium content	Good penetration depth complements coronary angiography	Invasive lower spatial resolution	No
Positron emission tomography (PET)	Plaque macrophage content		Not established for widespread clinical use	Yes [26, 27]
Optical CT	Plaque microstructure (fibrous cap thickness measurement)	High spatial resolution	Invasive limited depth of penetration	No
Invasive MR	Plaque morphology and structure		Not established for widespread clinical use	No
Coronary angioscopy	Direct plaque surface visualization	Three-dimensional view of plaque	Superficial assessment of plaque. Risk of coronary occlusion	No