Baseline patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. Proximal LAD stenosis of > 50% was seen in 26 of the 133 patients. The two groups differed significantly in the age, presence of hypertension or, diabetes, and number of pack years (P = 0.017, P = 0.032, P = 0.034, and P = 0.011, respectively); however, there were no other significant differences. The mean LM-LAD angles of patients with < 50% and > 50% proximal LAD stenosis were 29.2° and 38.3°, respectively. Table 2 shows that the LM-LAD angles and cosθ differed significantly between the two groups (P < 0.001 for both). There was no statistically significant difference in the linear distances between the d20 endpoints between the two groups (P = 0.104); however, there was a statistically significant difference in d20*cosθ (P < 0.001). Among the patients with > 50% proximal LAD stenosis, 65.4% and 73.1% of patients had a d20 < 19 mm and cosθ < 0.8, respectively. The areas under the ROC curves for d20, cosθ and d20*cosθ were 0.634, 0.743 and 0.767, respectively. The cut-off values of 19mm, 0.8, and 15.5 for d20, cosθ, and d20*cosθ, respectively, had sensitivities and specificities of 65.4 and 58.5, 73.1 and 74.8, and 80.8 and 71, respectively (Fig. 3). In the univariate analysis (Table 3), there were significant differences in the d20, cosθ < 0.8, age, presence of hypertension or diabetes, and number of pack years (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.70, 8.04, 1.05, 3.70, 2.82, and 1.04; 95% CI: 1.13–6.87, 3.17–22.57, 1.01–1.09, 1.30–13.30, 1.16–6.88, and 1.01–1.06; P = 0.029, P < 0.001, P = 0.020, P = 0.024, P = 0.021, and P = 0.002, respectively). However, in the multivariate analysis (Table 4), the d20*cosθ < 15.5, presence of hypertension, and number of pack years (HR: 11.36, 4.54, and 1.04; 95% CI: 3.9–39.54, 1.39–18.32, and 1.01–1.07; and P < 0.001, P = 0.019, and P = 0.003, respectively) were predictors of significant proximal LAD stenosis.
Table 1
Baseline characteristics between the two groups (n = 133)
| LAD stenosis < 50% | LAD stenosis ≥ 50% | P-value |
| (n = 107) | (n = 26) |
Age (year) | 59.7 ± 12.8 | 66.3 ± 10.8 | 0.017 |
Male (%) | 58 (54.2) | 18 (69.2) | 0.243 |
Height (cm) | 163.3 ± 9.2 | 163.8 ± 7.8 | 0.794 |
Body mass index (kg/m2) | 24.6 ± 4.0 | 24.5 ± 6.3 | 0.948 |
Hypertension (%) | 64 (59.8) | 22 (84.6) | 0.032 |
Dyslipidemia (%) | 69 (64.5) | 18 (69.2) | 0.821 |
Chronic kidney disease (%) | 4 ( 3.7) | 2 ( 7.7) | 0.730 |
Diabetes (%) | 28 (26.2) | 13 (50.0) | 0.034 |
Pack years | 7.6 ± 14.2 | 20.4 ± 22.8 | 0.011 |
Family history (%) | 7 ( 6.5) | 3 (11.5) | 0.651 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or number (percentage). LAD, left anterior descending artery |
Table 2
Calculated figures and parameters measured by computed tomography angiography
| LAD stenosis < 50% | LAD stenosis ≥ 50% | P-value |
| (n = 107) | (n = 26) |
LM-LAD (°) | 29.2 ± 10.9 | 38.3 ± 8.7 | < 0.001 |
cosθ | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | < 0.001 |
d20 | 19.0 ± 0.8 | 18.7 ± 0.7 | 0.104 |
d20*cosθ | 16.3 ± 2.0 | 14.5 ± 1.8 | < 0.001 |
d20 < 19 mm(%) | 44 (41.1) | 17 (65.4) | 0.045 |
cosθ < 0.8(%) | 27 (25.2) | 19 (73.1) | < 0.001 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or number (percentage). LM, left main coronary artery; LAD, left anterior descending artery; cosθ, cosine value for LM-LAD angle; d20, linear distance between the endpoints of the 20mm actual curve of the LAD. |
Table 3
Results of the univariate logistic regression analyses for predictors of significant proximal LAD stenosis.
| Univariate OR(95% CI) | P-value |
d20 < 19 mm | 2.70 (1.13–6.87) | 0.029 |
cosθ < 0.8 | 8.04 (3.17–22.57) | < 0.000 |
Age | 1.05 (1.01–1.09) | 0.020 |
Male | 1.90 (0.78–4.98) | 0.169 |
Body mass index | 1.00 (0.90–1.09) | 0.931 |
Hypertension | 3.70 (1.30–13.30) | 0.024 |
Dyslipidemia | 1.24 (0.51–3.26) | 0.649 |
Chronic kidney disease | 2.15 (0.29–11.67) | 0.394 |
Diabetes | 2.82 (1.16–6.88) | 0.021 |
Pack year | 1.04 (1.01–1.06) | 0.002 |
Family history | 1.86 (0.38–7.28) | 0.393 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or number (percentage). OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; d20, linear distance between the endpoints of the 20mm actual curve of the LAD; cosθ, cosine value for LM-LAD angle |
Table 4
Results of the multivariate logistic regression analyses for predictors of significant proximal LAD stenosis.
| Multivariate OR (95% CI) | P-value |
d20*cosθ < 15.5 | 11.36 (3.9-39.54) | < 0.001 |
Hypertension | 4.54 (1.39–18.32) | 0.019 |
Pack year | 1.04 (1.01–1.07) | 0.003 |
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or number (percentage). OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; d20, the linear distance between the endpoints of the 20mm actual curve of the LAD; cosθ, cosine value for LM-LAD angle |
In the present report, we provided the importance of the combined factors (d20*cosθ) of the LM-LAD angle and the LAD tortuosity when considering risk or predicting factors of significant proximal LAD stenosis. That means that the structural analysis of the patient's coronary artery is necessary in the analysis for the cause of coronary artery disease, and is also important for patient management.
Atherosclerosis is a chronic disease that results in insufficient blood supply to the heart muscle which can lead to angina or heart attacks1. Metabolic problems are considered causative factors for atherosclerosis of blood vessels; however, there are structural factors that are also considered important contributors to this disease. Coronary bifurcation angles influence plaque initiation in the coronary artery2.
We previously performed a study which found that the LM-LAD angle was, statistically, a more significant factor in the formation of the LAD stenotic lesions than the LAD-left circumflex artery (LCX) angle3. Malvè et al. reported that the LM-LAD angle is a better predictor of low shear stress than the LM-LCX angle5. In addition, coronary artery tortuosity leads to a variation in blood flow and affects the local wall shear stress6. The tortuosity index (TI) is the distance factor defined as TI = (L/D)-1: where L is the vessel length, and D is the straight line distance between its end point7.
Both the coronary artery bifurcation angles and tortuosity change the shear stress in blood vessels. In general, low shear stress is a causative factor for atherosclerosis8–11. To our knowledge, there has been little research into the structural analysis of proximal LAD lesions. In particular, few studies have simultaneously analyzed the tortuosity and bifurcation angle.
The wall shear stress (τ) can be expressed as τ = 4 ηQ/πr3,
where η is the apparent blood viscosity (0.035 Poise), Q is the rate of blood flow through the vessel, and r is the vessel radius. The shear stress increases when the blood flow increases or blood vessel diameter decreases, and the shear stress decreases as the blood flow decreases12.
A wider coronary artery bifurcation angles, regions of low shear stress form in the areas of bifurcation13, 14, and the fluid shear stress gradients (flow acceleration and deceleration) that are created in tortuous vessels have been shown to initiate platelet aggravation15.
The proximal LAD forms a bifurcation angle, branches at the LM, and has tortuosity. Its blood flow is influenced by two factors, bifurcation angle and tortuosity. In other words, as the proximal LAD bifurcation angle increases, regions of low shear stress occur, Subsequently, regions of high and low shear stress occur on the bent outer and inner sides, respectively, resulting in shear gradients.
Using this rationale, we described the bifurcation angle and tortuosity as one (d20*cosθ). The vessel length was fixed at 20 mm, thus the d20 was the only variable that was used to represent tortuosity. This equation did not come from a physical or mathematical calculation. Both factors have close effects on the shear stress, and the resulting effects on the vessel could also be considered closely related. Thus, it was expressed as a product of two factors and the results were statistically significant (Table 4). In particular, when d20*cos θ < 15.5, the risk of proximal LAD lesion formation was high. To satisfy the inequality of d20*cosθ < 15.5, d20 should be < 19.94 when θ = 39°. However, when θ > 40°, d20 should be < 20.23. Since d20 is always < 20, all d20 values always satisfy the inequality at angles above 40°.
When d20 is 20, that is, when there is no bending, the LM-LAD angle must be > 39° to satisfy the inequality. In summary, when there is no bending, the risk of proximal LAD lesion formation occurs at an LM-LAD angle > 39°. In other words, if the LM-LAD angle is < 39°, the risk of proximal LAD lesion formation is affected by both the d20 and the LM-LAD angle. If it is > 40°, the risk of proximal LAD lesions is affected by the angle rather than the tortuosity. And in the absence of tortuosity of LAD, risk of proximal LAD lesions are affected when the LM-LAD angle is > 40°. In the study that we performed previously3, we found that an LM-LAD angle > 40° was a predictor for significant LAD stenosis.
This was a single center, retrospective study, and the sample size of the number of patients with significant LAD stenosis was small. A larger, multi-center, prospective study is needed. Since the length of the proximal LAD was measured up to 20 mm, it may be difficult to apply our findings to the entire area of the coronary artery.
The findings of this study are too complicated to generalize, because the entire LAD does not only bend once and there are several changes in the blood vessel route. In our next study, we plan to repeat our measurements and include measurements that are divided into the mid and, distal LAD to express a generalizable formula that may be applicable to the entire LAD.