Morphological and quantitative angiographic analyses of progression of coronary stenoses. A comparison of Q-wave and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to determine differences in coronary stenosis severity and morphology and time course of progression between Q-wave and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS AND RESULTS We studied 32 patients with new Q-wave MI and 38 patients with new non-Q-wave MI who underwent coronary angiography both before and after MI without interval revascularization procedures. Quantitative coronary angiographic analysis was performed by the caliper method, and morphological analysis of coronary angiograms was obtained before and soon after acute MI. Before infarction, the stenosis severity at the site of future MI was worse in Q-wave (44 +/- 25%) versus non-Q-wave (23 +/- 35%) MI patients (P < .01). Eccentric and irregular plaques were more common in Q-wave MI patients (18 of 32, 56%, versus 5 of 38, 13%; P < .001). Non-Q-wave MI patients were more frequently found to have significant collaterals after MI compared with Q-wave MI patients (18 of 38, 47%, versus 1 of 32, 3%; P < .001) despite no difference in post-MI stenosis severity. Analysis according to time interval after pre-MI angiography showed that 9 of 11 patients (82%) with Q-wave MI < 18 months later had a stenosis of > or = 50% versus 7 of 21 (33%) with an interval > 18 months (P < .05). By comparison, non-Q-wave MI patients tended to fall into two categories regardless of time of progression: Either minimal or no stenosis (< 20%) or else a severe stenosis (> 70%) was typically present. CONCLUSIONS The atheromatous plaque substrate is different in Q-wave and non-Q-wave MI. Non-Q-wave MI occurs typically at a site shown by pre-MI angiography to involve either minimal luminal narrowing or a severe stenosis before MI, which is usually nonulcerated. By comparison, Q-wave MI follows a moderate stenosis in which the plaque is eccentric and ulcerated. Such differences culminate in differences in thrombus lability and collateral development and consequently in different clinical profiles.