Association of lipoprotein(a) concentration and apo(a) isoform size with restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

Risk factors of thromboembolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with low CHA2DS2-VASc score

The risk of thromboembolism in patients with CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 to 1 was low, and the anticoagulant therapy was not recommended. Although the CHA2DS2-VASc score was low, there were still many patients suffered from thrombotic events and stroke. We aim to investigate the risk factors of thrombotic events in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with low CHA2DS2-VASc score.We retrospectively enrolled 595 consecutive NVAF patients with low CHA2DS2-VASc score (male: CHA2DS2-VASc = 0, female: CHA2DS2-VASc = 1). The general clinical data, blood biochemical data, and echocardiography results of the 595 patients were collected. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate risk factors of thrombosis. Receiver operating characteristic curve was used to identify the optimal cut-off value of the independent risk factors. A P value of <.05 (2-sided) was considered to be statistically significant.In multivariate analysis, lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) plasma level and left atrium diameter (LAD) were positively related to thromboembolism in NVAF patients with CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 to 1 after adjustment for age, gender, and other variables (odds ratio [OR] = 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.03; OR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.06-1.18). Lp(a) exerted a significant predictive value with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.55-0.68, P < .01). The optimal cut-off value for Lp(a) predicting thrombotic events was 27.2 mg/dL (sensitivity 45.7%, specificity 73.4%). LAD showed a significant predictive value with AUC of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.64-0.78, P < .01). The optimal cut-off point for LAD predicting thrombotic events was 43.5 mm (sensitivity 47.1%, specificity 85.8%).High Lp(a) plasma level and left atrial dilatation might be independent risk factors of thrombotic events for NVAF patients with low CHA2DS2-VASc score.

Present status of outcome prediction of invasive coronary treatment by using genetic markers

A growing number of studies suggest that the outcome after invasive coronary treatment may be in part genetically determined. Here, we review the present status of outcome prediction of invasive coronary treatments by using genetic markers. Although some studies found an association between one or another genetic marker with one or another clinical endpoint, many other studies found no such relations; to date, none of the genetic markers that have been investigated in association studies are used in routine clinical practice to prospectively assess the prognosis following invasive coronary treatment or to decide upon therapeutic strategies. Many associations between genetic markers and certain clinical endpoints were initially reported in small studies but could not be confirmed in larger ones. Some of these discrepancies may be explained by publication bias. Some genetic variants may have true effects on clinical endpoints, which, albeit biologically interesting, do not bear much clinical relevance. On the other hand, many-if not most-studies that have been published to date are more or less grossly underpowered and very rarely report on the results of an a priori power analysis. Thus, there is still a need for further high-quality studies designed to investigate the specific contribution of genetic factors to the outcome after invasive coronary interventions.

Restenosis after intracoronary stent placement: can apolipoprotein(a) polymorphism play a role?

BACKGROUND

The relationship between lipoprotein(a) and restenosis after intracoronary stent implantation has been analysed by two specific studies, but the role of apoliprotein(a) polymorphism was not considered. The aim of the present prospective study was to evaluate whether lipoprotein(a) levels and apolipoprotein(a) phenotypes are predictors of restenosis after elective stent implantation in patients with de novo lesions of coronary arteries.

METHODS

We recruited 182 patients with a new lesion successfully treated with elective placement of one or two Palmaz-Schatz stents. Follow-up angiography was scheduled at 6 months or earlier if clinically indicated. Nine patients were lost to the follow up. Among 173 patients enrolled, restenosis was present in 52 (30.0%) and absent in 121 (70.0%).

RESULTS

Lipoprotein(a) levels were higher in the restenosis than in the nonrestenosis group (29.5+/-17.2 versus 27.4+/-20.2 mg/dl), even if the difference did not attain statistical significance (P=0.067). The restenosis group had a percentage of subjects with at least one apolipoprotein(a) isoform of low molecular weight significantly greater than the nonrestenosis group (82.7 versus 66.9%; P=0.035). A multiple logistic regression analysis showed that multiple stenting (RR: 4.01; CI 95%: 1.65-13.91; P=0.004), presence of diabetes (RR: 3.96; CI 95%: 1.67-9.37; P=0.002) and presence of multivessel disease (RR: 2.71; CI 95%: 1.19-6.16; P=0.017) were predictors of restenosis after stent placement. Lipoprotein(a) and apolipoprotein(a) polymorphism did not enter the model as predictive variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms that multiple stenting, diabetes and multivessel disease are powerful predictors of restenosis after intracoronary stent implantation. On the contrary, lipoprotein(a) and apolipoprotein(a) polymorphism do not appear to be reliable markers of restenosis in patients with stent implantation.