Skip to main content
. 2015 Sep 16;26:2206–2214. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-4008-5

Table 2.

Comparisons of plaque characteristics between culprit and non-culprit lesions

Symptomatic patient (n = 112) Asymptomatic patient (n = 27) p value
Culprit (n = 112) Contralateral non-culprit (n = 26)
TOF-stenosis, median [IQR] (%) 67.3 [54.1, 80.5] 48.8 [32.4, 72.3] 55.3 [47.0, 72.6] 0.002
 No stenosis (<29 %), n (%) 2 (1.8) 5 (19.2) 3 (11.1) 0.003
 Mild (30-49 %), n (%) 18 (16.1) 8 (30.8) 5 (18.5) 0.278
 Moderate (50–69 %), n (%) 40 (35.7) 5 (19.2) 12 (44.4) 0.777
 Severe (70–99 %), n (%) 25 (22.3) 5 (19.2) 4 (14.8) 0.558
 Occlusion, n (%) 27 (24.1) 3 (11.6) 3 (11.1) 0.088
Plaque burden (%) 91 [84, 96] 75 [66, 88] 83 [74, 89] <0.0001
Minimum luminal area (mm2) 0.95 [0.43, 1.94] 3.12 [1.66, 5.06] 2.22 [1.08, 3.15] <0.0001
Plaque volume (mm3) 45.27 [23.93, 61.80] 27.82 [19.20, 44.29] 29.35 [21.14, 43.20] 0.020
Plaque length (mm) 8 [6, 12] 6 [4, 9.5] 8 [4, 8] 0.002
Normalized T1 signal intensity >1.0, n (%) 7 (6.3) 0 (0) 1 (3.7) 0.439
Normalized T2 signal intensity >1.0, n (%) 27 (24.1) 4 (15.4) 8 (29.6) 0.953
Normalized CE-T1 signal intensity >1.0, n (%) 54 (48.2) 2 (7.7) 7 (25.9) 0.0002