Lipoprotein apheresis in patients with peripheral artery disease and hyperlipoproteinemia(a)

The Role of Lipoprotein(a) in Peripheral Artery Disease

Lipoprotein(a) is a low-density-lipoprotein-like particle that consists of apolipoprotein(a) bound to apolipoprotein(b). It has emerged as an established causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, stroke, and aortic valve stenosis through multifactorial pathogenic mechanisms that include inflammation, atherogenesis, and thrombosis. Despite an estimated 20% of the global population having elevated lipoprotein(a) levels, testing remains underutilized due to poor awareness and a historical lack of effective and safe therapies. Although lipoprotein(a) has a strong association with coronary artery disease and cerebrovascular disease, its relationship with peripheral artery disease is less well established. In this article, we review the epidemiology, biology, and pathogenesis of lipoprotein(a) as it relates to peripheral artery disease. We also discuss emerging treatment options to help mitigate major adverse cardiac and limb events in this population.

Heparin-Mediated Extracorporeal Low-Density Lipoprotein Precipitation Apheresis for Treating Peripheral Arterial Disease in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), particularly those with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), have a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease and peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Medical treatment is mainly based on risk factor management, and the surgical approach remains the gold standard treatment in specific conditions. Heparin-mediated extracorporeal low-density lipoprotein precipitation (H.E.L.P.) apheresis is effective in reducing circulating lipoprotein, fibrinogen, inflammatory mediators and procoagulant factors, thereby reducing cardiovascular risk in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia. These activities may be effective in reducing symptoms and ischemic vascular lesions even in patients with severe PAD. We reported the application of a treatment protocol with H.E.L.P. apheresis in an ESRD patient with severe PAD without clinical improvement after severe revascularization who was not suitable for further surgical approaches, despite normal LDL cholesterol and lipoprotein (a). The H.E.L.P. protocol was characterized by an intensive first phase with weekly treatments followed by a single session every 10-15 days for 6 months of treatment. The overall clinical condition, foot lesions and walking distance improved significantly after the first 2 months of treatment, and foot amputation was avoided. Here, we review the main pathogenetic mechanisms through which LDL apheresis improves microcirculation and clinical outcomes. Its wider application may represent an optimal therapeutic option for patients unresponsive to standard treatment.

Impact of serum lipoprotein(a) on endothelium-dependent coronary vasomotor response assessed by intracoronary acetylcholine provocation

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic vascular disease. However, there are limited data regarding the impact of Lp(a) levels on the incidence and severity of endothelium-dependent coronary vasomotor response.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 2416 patients without significant coronary artery lesion (<50% stenosis) by coronary angiography and underwent acetylcholine (ACh) provocation test were enrolled and categorized according to their serum Lp(a) level into four quartile groups: less than 6.70, 6.70-13.30, 13.30-26.27, and more than 26.27 mg/dl. The aim of this study is to estimate the incidence and severity of endothelium-dependent positive ACh provocation test in each group; moreover, to access the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events, the composite of total death, myocardial infarction, and de novo percutaneous coronary intervention were compared between the four groups up to 5 years.

RESULTS

The group with higher Lp(a) had a higher incidence of coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, and peripheral arterial disease history. However, there was no difference among the four groups as regards the incidence of positive ACh provocation test, spasm severity, spasm extent, and location. However, at up to 5 years of clinical follow-up, the higher-Lp(a) group showed higher total death, de novo percutaneous coronary intervention, recurrent angina, and total major adverse cardiovascular events compared with the lower-Lp(a) groups.

CONCLUSION

In our study, there was no relationship between the elevated Lp(a) level and the vasospastic response to the intracoronary ACh provocation test; however, higher Lp(a) levels were associated with poor clinical outcomes up to 5 years.

Lipoprotein(a) apheresis in patients with peripheral arterial disease: rationale and clinical results

Patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) are at a very high risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Elevated lipoprotein(a) levels have been shown to be a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD) and stroke. More recently elevated lipoprotein(a) levels have also been demonstrated to be associated with prevalent and incident PAD, and even may be a stronger risk factor for PAD compared with CAD. Lipoprotein apheresis is currently the only efficient way to lower lipoprotein(a) levels. Lipoprotein(a) apheresis has been shown to reduce major coronary events in patients with CAD. There is increasing evidence that lipoprotein(a) apheresis also reduces the rate of major adverse limb events such as peripheral revascularizations and amputations in PAD patients, and improves symptoms of PAD such as pain on exertion. This review summarizes the current knowledge on the clinical role of lipoprotein(a) for PAD and the disease-specific effect of lipoprotein(a) apheresis, and suggests indications for screening for and treating of elevated lipoprotein(a) levels in patients with PAD.

Incidence of elevated lipoprotein (a) levels in a large cohort of patients with cardiovascular disease

Background

Recently it has been demonstrated that elevated lipoprotein (a) (LPA) levels are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease across multiple ethnic groups. However, there is only scanty data about the incidence of elevated LPA levels in different patient cohorts. As a consequence, we aimed to examine whether patients with elevated LPA levels might be seen more often in a cardiovascular center in comparison to the general population.

Methods

We reviewed LPA concentrations of 52,898 consecutive patients who were admitted to our hospital between January 2004 and December 2014. We subdivided them into different groups according to their LPA levels. Data was compared to available information in medical literature.

Results

26.4% of the patients had LPA levels >30 mg/dl which is in line with the data from literature. Mean level of LPA concentration in our study was twice as high in comparison to the general population (25.8% vs. 13.3%). 4.6% had LPA levels >98 mg/dl (general population <0.3%).

Conclusion

In patients admitted to a cardiovascular center the proportion of LPA >30 mg/dl is comparable to the general population but mean levels over all are twice as high and the proportion of patients with LPA levels of >98 mg/dl is extremely higher.

Lp(a) and cardiovascular risk: Investigating the hidden side of the moon

AIMS

This article reports current evidence on the association between Lp(a) and cardiovascular (CV) disease and on pathophysiological mechanisms. The available information on therapy for reduction of lipoprotein(a) is also discussed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Although some evidence is conflicting, Lp(a) seems to increase CV risk through stimulation of platelet aggregation, inhibition of tissue factor pathway inhibitor, alteration of fibrin clot structure and promotion of endothelial dysfunction and phospholipid oxidation. Lp(a) 3.5-fold higher than normal increases the risk of coronary heart disease and general CV events, particularly in those with LDL cholesterol ≥ 130 mg/dl. High Lp(a) values represent also an independent risk factor for ischemic stroke (more relevant in young stroke patients), peripheral artery disease (PAD) and aortic and mitral stenosis. Furthermore, high Lp(a) levels seem to be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients with chronic kidney disease, particularly in those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Lipoprotein (a) (Lp[a]) seems to significantly influence the risk of cardiovascular events. The effects of statins and fibrates on Lp(a) are limited and extremely variable. Nicotinic acid was shown effective in reducing Lp(a) but, due to its side effects and serious adverse events during clinical trials, it is no longer considered a possible option for treatment. To date, the treatment of choice for high levels of Lp(a) in high CV risk patients is represented by LDL-Apheresis. Thanks to innovative technologies, new selectively inhibiting LPA drugs are being developed and tested.

Lipoprotein(a) apheresis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Currently, different methods for extracorporeal elimination of atherogenic apolipoprotein B100 containing lipoprotein particles are used in clinical practice. Most of them effectively remove both lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and LDL. The aim of this review is to highlight research describing the clinical advantages of specific Lp(a) immunosorption compared with other lipoprotein apheresis systems.

RECENT FINDINGS

Data on the utility of lipoprotein apheresis in patients with elevated Lp(a) level are limited. However, several longitudinal studies demonstrated improvement in cardiovascular outcomes when both Lp(a) and LDL cholesterol levels were decreased with different apheresis systems. The main limitation of these trials is the absence of a control group. First developed in 1991, studies on apheresis with a specific immunosorbent to Lp(a) were small and noncontrolled before 2000s. The only prospective controlled clinical trial utilising Lp(a) apheresis (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02133807), demonstrated regression of coronary and carotid atherosclerosis when Lp(a) was removed weekly for 18 months.

SUMMARY

Lipoprotein apheresis usually affects multiple lipoproteins, and there are minimal data regarding the effect of specific removal of Lp(a) alone. There is a need for randomized controlled trial with specific Lp(a) apheresis to investigate its effect on cardiovascular outcomes.