Review Article
Impact of Medical Therapy on Atheroma Volume Measured by Different Cardiovascular Imaging Modalities
Table 3
Summary of trials highlighting the anti-atherosclerotic effects of antioxidants.
| Study | N | Medication | Imaging modality | Follow-up (months) | Outcome | Result | P-value |
| SECURE [16] | 732 | Vitamin E versus Placebo | B-mode ultrasound | 52 | CIMT (mm/yr) | 0.0180 versus 0.0174 | NS |
| ASAP [57] | 520 | Vitamin E + C | B-ultrasound | 72 | CIMT (%) | −26 | .014¶ |
| Fang et al. [59] | 40 | Vitamin E + C versus Placebo | IVUS | 12 | average intimal index† (%) | +0.8 versus +8 | .008 |
| VEAPS [56] | 353 | Vitamin E versus Placebo | B-ultrasound | 36 | CIMT (mm/yr) | +0.0040 ± 0.0007 versus +0.0023 ± 0.0007 | .08 |
| Brown et al. [35] | 160 | Antioxidants versus Placebo | QCA | 36 | % diameter stenosis | +1.8 ± 4.2 versus +3.9 ± 5.2 | NS | | Simvastatin + Niacin + antioxidants versus placebo | +0.7 ± 3.2 versus +3.9 ± 5.2 | <.005 |
| Nunes et al. [60] | 54 | Probucol versus placebo | IVUS | 6 | Intimal hyperplasia volume (mm3) | 40.3 ± 26.7 versus 44.8 ± 28.3 | .72 | | % luminal volume obstruction | 30.4 ± 14.5 versus 30.7 ± 17.2 | .86 | | QCA | Restenosis rate (%) | 19.4 versus 18.5 | .75 |
| Tardif et al. [61] | 305 | Probucol versus placebo | IVUS | 6 | Luminal area @ PCI (mm2) | 3.69 ± 2.69 versus 2.66 ± 1.58 | <.05 | Succinobuccol (AGI-1067) versus placebo | 3.36 ± 2.12 versus 2.66 ± 1.58 | <.05 |
| Tardif et al. [62] | 232 | 280 mg Succinobuccol (AGI-1067) versus placebo | IVUS | 12 | Plaque volume (mm3) | −4.0; P =.001¶ versus −0.7; P = | .12‡ |
|
|
¶ Baseline versus Followup † intimal index (plaque area/vessel area) ‡ difference between groups
|