Several studies have been carried out on vulnerable plaque as the main culprit for ischaemic cardiac events. Historically, the most important diagnostic technique for studying coronary atherosclerotic disease was to determine the residual luminal diameter by angiographic measurement of the stenosis. However, it has become clear that vulnerable plaque rupture as well as thrombosis, rather than stenosis, triggers most acute ischaemic events and that the quantification of risk based merely on severity of the arterial stenosis is not sufficient. In the last decades, substantial progresses have been made on optimisation of techniques detecting the arterial wall morphology, plaque composition and inflammation. To date, the use of a single technique is not recommended to precisely identify the progression of the atherosclerotic process in human beings. In contrast, the integration of data that can be derived from multiple methods might improve our knowledge about plaque destabilisation. The aim of this narrative review is to update evidence on the accuracy of the currently available non-invasive and invasive imaging techniques in identifying components and morphologic characteristics associated with coronary plaque vulnerability.

Background: Right atrial pressure (RAP) can be estimated by echocardiography from inferior vena cava diameter and collapsibility (eRAPIVC), tricuspid E/e′ ratio (eRAPE/e′), or hepatic vein flow (eRAPHV). The mean of these estimates (eRAPmean) might be more accurate than single assessments.Methods and Results: eRAPIVC, eRAPE/e′, eRAPHV (categorized in 5, 10, 15, or 20 mmHg), eRAPmean (continuous values) and invasive RAP (iRAP) were obtained in 43 consecutive patients undergoing right heart catheterization [median age 69 (58–75) years, 49% males]. There was a positive correlation between eRAPmean and iRAP (Spearman test r = 0.66, P < 0.001), with Bland–Altman test showing the best agreement for values <10 mmHg. There was also a trend for decreased concordance between eRAPIVC, eRAPE/e′, eRAPHV, and iRAP across the 5- to 20-mmHg categories, and iRAP was significantly different from eRAPE/e′ and eRAPHV for the 20-mmHg category (Wilcoxon signed-rank test P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively). The areas under the curve in predicting iRAP were nonsignificantly better for eRAPmean than for eRAPIVC at both 5-mmHg [0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49–0.80 vs. 0.70, 95% CI 0.53–0.87; Wald test P = 0.41] and 10-mmHg (0.76, 95% CI 0.60–0.92 vs. 0.81, 95% CI 0.67–0.96; P = 0.43) thresholds.Conclusions: Our data suggest that multiparametric eRAPmean does not provide advantage over eRAPIVC, despite being more complex and time-consuming.

Contrast echocardiography with agitated saline is used to assess mainly the existence of interatrial communication. We report a case of a 26-year-old woman, with a "port-a-cath" central venous line, who had an unusual finding in agitated saline contrast echocardiography. Multimodality imaging revealed occlusion of superior vena cava and a systemic-to-pulmonary venous shunt.

No abstract

No abstract