Lipoprotein (a), hypertension, and cardiovascular outcomes: a prospective study of patients with stable coronary artery disease

Assessing the relationship between lipoprotein(a) levels and blood pressure among hypertensive patients beyond conventional measures. An observational study

High lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) levels are associated with an increased risk of arterial hypertension (AHT) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, little is known about the detailed profile of AHT based on Lp(a) levels. This observational study focused on elucidating the relationship between Lp(a) concentrations and specific indices obtained from 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring in hypertensive patients over 18 years of age. We gathered and analyzed data on BP indices along with demographic, epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory variables from 227 hypertensive patients, median age 56 years, including 127 women (56%). After comparing hypertensive patients with Lp(a) levels above and below 125 nmol/L, we found that a 10 mmHg increase in nocturnal systolic BP and all pulse pressure indices (24-h, daytime, and night-time) was associated with an increased risk of high Lp(a) levels by more than 20% and 40%, respectively. Similarly, each 10% increase in the area under the function over time of nocturnal diastolic BP dipping was associated with more than a 30% decrease in the odds of belonging to the elevated Lp(a) levels category. Additionally, Lp(a) levels above 125 nmol/L were associated with higher 24-h, daytime, and night-time systolic BP and pulse pressure load. The relationship between Lp(a) and AHT appears to extend beyond conventional BP measurements, which may be relevant given the prognostic implications of nocturnal BP and pulse pressure indices.

Relationship Between Lipoprotein(a), Renal Function Indicators, and Chronic Kidney Disease: Evidence From a Large Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) poses a significant global public health challenge. While lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) has been established as a significant factor in cardiovascular disease, its connection to CKD risk remains a topic of debate. Existing evidence indicates diverse risks of kidney disease among individuals with various renal function indicators, even when within the normal range.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate the joint associations between different renal function indicators and Lp(a) regarding the risks of incident CKD in the general population.

METHODS

The analysis involved a cohort of 329,415 participants without prior CKD who were enrolled in the UK Biobank between 2006 and 2010. The participants, with an average age of 56 (SD 8.1) years, included 154,298/329,415 (46.84%) males. At baseline, Lp(a) levels were measured using an immunoturbidimetric assay and classified into 2 groups: low (<75 nmol/L) and high (≥75 nmol/L). To assess participants' baseline renal function, we used the baseline urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The relationship between Lp(a), renal function indicators, and the risk of CKD was evaluated using multivariable Cox regression models. These models were adjusted for various factors, including sociodemographic variables, lifestyle factors, comorbidities, and laboratory measures.

RESULTS

A total of 6003 incident CKD events were documented over a median follow-up period of 12.5 years. The association between elevated Lp(a) levels and CKD risk did not achieve statistical significance among all participants, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.05 and a 95% CI ranging from 0.98 to 1.13 (P=.16). However, a notable interaction was identified between Lp(a) and UACR in relation to CKD risk (P for interaction=.04), whereas no significant interaction was observed between Lp(a) and eGFR (P for interaction=.96). When compared with the reference group with low Lp(a) and low-normal UACR (<10 mg/g), the group with high Lp(a) and low-normal UACR exhibited a nonsignificant association with CKD risk (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90-1.08; P=.74). By contrast, both the low Lp(a) and high-normal UACR (≥10 mg/g) group (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.24; P<.001) and the high Lp(a) and high-normal UACR group (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.19-1.46; P<.001) demonstrated significant associations with increased CKD risks. In individuals with high-normal UACR, elevated Lp(a) was linked to a significant increase in CKD risk, with an HR of 1.14 and a 95% CI ranging from 1.03 to 1.26 (P=.01). Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses consistently produced results that were largely in line with the main findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis revealed a significant interaction between Lp(a) and UACR in relation to CKD risk. This implies that Lp(a) may act as a risk factor for CKD even when considering UACR. Our findings have the potential to provide valuable insights into the assessment and prevention of CKD, emphasizing the combined impact of Lp(a) and UACR from a public health perspective within the general population. This could contribute to enhancing public awareness regarding the management of Lp(a) for the prevention of CKD.

Machine learning aided non-invasive diagnosis of coronary heart disease based on tongue features fusion

BACKGROUND

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the first cause of death globally. Hypertension is considered to be the most important independent risk factor for CHD. Early and accurate diagnosis of CHD in patients with hypertension can plays a significant role in reducing the risk and harm of hypertension combined with CHD.

OBJECTIVE

To propose a non-invasive method for early diagnosis of coronary heart disease according to tongue image features with the help of machine learning techniques.

METHODS

We collected standard tongue images and extract features by Diagnosis Analysis System (TDAS) and ResNet-50. On the basis of these tongue features, a common machine learning method is used to customize the non-invasive CHD diagnosis algorithm based on tongue image.

RESULTS

Based on feature fusion, our algorithm has good performance. The results showed that the XGBoost model with fused features had the best performance with accuracy of 0.869, the AUC of 0.957, the AUPR of 0.961, the precision of 0.926, the recall of 0.806, and the F1-score of 0.862.

CONCLUSION

We provide a feasible, convenient, and non-invasive method for the diagnosis and large-scale screening of CHD. Tongue image information is a possible effective marker for the diagnosis of CHD.

Burden of elevated lipoprotein(a) among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: Evidence from a systematic literature review and feasibility assessment of meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level is an independent genetic risk factor that increases the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) by 2-4 fold. We aimed to report the burden of clinically relevant elevated Lp(a) in secondary prevention ASCVD population as the evaluation of such evidence is lacking.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted using Embase®, MEDLINE®, and MEDLINE® In-Process databases to identify studies reporting burden of elevated Lp(a) levels from January 1, 2010, to March 28, 2022. Full-text, English-language studies including ≥500 participants with ≥1 Lp(a) assessment were included.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies reported clinical burden of elevated Lp(a). Of these, 25 observational studies and one clinical trial reported clinical burden of clinically relevant elevated Lp(a) levels. Major clinical outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; n = 20), myocardial infarction (MI; n = 11), revascularization (n = 10), stroke (n = 10), cardiovascular (CV) mortality (n = 9), and all-cause mortality (n = 10). Elevated Lp(a) levels significantly increased the risk of MACE (n = 15) and revascularization (n = 8), while they demonstrated a trend for positive association with remaining CV outcomes. Meta-analysis was not feasible for included studies due to heterogeneity in Lp(a) thresholds, outcome definitions, and patient characteristics. Three studies reported humanistic burden. Patients with elevated Lp(a) levels had higher odds of manifesting cognitive impairment (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval; CI]: 1.62 [1.11-2.37]) and disability related to stroke (OR [95% CI]:1.46 [1.23-1.72)]) (n = 2). Elevated Lp(a) levels negatively correlated with health-related quality of life (R = -0.166, p = 0.014) (n = 1). A single study reported no association between elevated Lp(a) levels and economic burden.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLR demonstrated a significant association of elevated Lp(a) levels with major CV outcomes and increased humanistic burden in secondary prevention ASCVD population. These results reinforce the need to quantify and manage Lp(a) for CV risk reduction and to perform further studies to characterize the economic burden.

Association of Lp(a) (Lipoprotein[a]) and Hypertension in Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: The MESA

BACKGROUND

This study explored the longitudinal relationship of Lp(a) (lipoprotein[a]) and hypertension to cardiovascular outcomes in a large multiethnic cohort free of baseline cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

Individuals from the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis; N=6674) were grouped as follows: group 1: Lp(a) <50 mg/dL and no hypertension; group 2: Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL and no hypertension; group 3: Lp(a) <50 mg/dL and hypertension; and group 4: Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL and hypertension. Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the relationship of Lp(a) and hypertension with time to cardiovascular disease events.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up time was 13.9 (5.0) years and 809 participants experienced a cardiovascular disease event. A statistically significant interaction was found between Log[Lp(a)] and hypertension status (P=0.091). Compared with the reference group (Lp[a] <50 mg/dL and no hypertension), those with Lp[a] ≥50 mg/dL and no hypertension had no increased risk for cardiovascular disease events (hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.79-1.50]). However, those with Lp(a) <50 mg/dL and hypertension or Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL and hypertension demonstrated a statistically significant increase in risk compared to the reference group (hazard ratio, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.39-1.98]) and (hazard ratio, 2.07 [95% CI, 1.63-2.62]), respectively. Among those with hypertension, Lp(a) was associated with a significant increase in cardiovascular disease risk (hazard ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.01-1.53]).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the major contribution to cardiovascular risk was hypertension, elevated Lp(a) significantly modified the association of hypertension with cardiovascular disease. More research is needed to understand mechanistic links among Lp(a), hypertension, and cardiovascular disease.

Clinical impact of blood pressure on cardiovascular death in patients 80 years and older following acute myocardial infarction: a prospective cohort study

Numerous trials have shown that lowering blood pressure (BP) reduces cardiovascular risk and mortality, yet data about the impact of BP on cardiovascular death risk in patients aged ≥80 years with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are sparse. This study explored the prognostic value of BP for cardiovascular death during the first 48 h after admission following AMI among patients aged ≥80 years. A total of 1005 patients ≥80 years with AMI were enrolled. Average BP parameters, including systolic, diastolic, and pulse BP, over the first 48 h after admission were calculated. The end point was cardiovascular death. Receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis was used to identify whether BP was relevant to cardiovascular death. The relationship between BP levels and cardiovascular death was evaluated by Cox regression models. ROC analysis showed that average diastolic blood pressure (aDBP), but not systolic and pulse BP, was relevant to cardiovascular death, and the optimal cutoff was 65 mmHg. During the 2.9-year follow-up, patients who died from a cardiovascular cause had lower aDBP levels than those who did not (p = 0.002). Patients with aDBP <65 mmHg had a 1.5-fold higher incidence of cardiovascular death than those with aDBP ≥65 mmHg (35.9% vs. 24.0%; p < 0.001). In multivariable regression analysis, low aDBP remained a strong and independent predictor of cardiovascular death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.907; 95% CI 1.303-2.792). aDBP was independently associated with cardiovascular death in patients aged ≥80 years with AMI, suggesting that aDBP may be a useful index to predict worse outcome in these patients.

Cardiac markers: Role in the pathogenesis of arterial hypertension

Cardiac biomarkers may play unique roles in the prognostic evaluation of patients with hypertension, as many cardiac biomarker levels become abnormal long before the onset of obvious cardiovascular disease (CVD). There are numerous cardiac markers. However, this review article only reported the roles of creatinine kinase-MB, cardiac troponins, lipoprotein a, osteopontin, cardiac extracellular matrix, C-reactive protein, cardiac matrix metalloproteinases, cardiac natriuretic peptides, myoglobin, renin, and dynorphin in the pathogenesis of hypertension. This article explained recent major advances, as well as discoveries, significant gaps, and current debates and outlined possible directions for future research. Further studies are required to determine the association between myoglobin and other cardiac markers in hypertension. Moreover, therapeutic approaches are required to determine the early control of these cardiac markers, which ultimately reduce the prevalence of CVDs.

Lipoprotein(a) and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease and Different Metabolic Phenotypes

Background

The positive relationship between metabolic healthy obesity (MHO) and cardiovascular risk has been under debate in recent years. Previously, strong evidence supported the causal role of increased plasma lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels in cardiovascular disease (CVD). The current study aimed to investigate the different associations of Lp(a) and cardiovascular events (CVEs) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and different metabolic phenotypes.

Methods

A total of 5,089 patients who were angiography-proven CAD were consecutively included and followed up for CVEs. Obesity was defined as a body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m² according to Asia-specific BMI criteria. Patients were divided into four groups according to metabolic phenotypes, namely metabolically healthy/unhealthy non-obese and metabolically healthy/unhealthy obese [metabolically healthy non-obese (MHN), MHO, metabolically unhealthy non-obese (MUN), and metabolically unhealthy obesity (MUO)]. Comparisons of CAD severity and outcomes were performed among four groups. Cox regression analyses and cubic spline models were used to examine the relationship between Lp(a) and CVEs in patients with different metabolic phenotypes.

Results

During a median of 7.5 years’ follow-up, 540 (10.6%) CVEs occurred. MUN and MUO populations had more severe coronary stenosis than MHN ones, while no significant difference in the Gensini score (GS) was observed between MHN and MHO. Patients with MUN and MUO presented a higher risk of CVEs than patients with MHN (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.414, 95% CI: 1.024–1.953–1.556 and HR: 1.747, 95% CI: 1.295–1.363, p < 0.05). In subgroup analysis, restricted cubic spline models showed that there was no association between Lp(a) and CVEs in patients in MHN and MHO, while the MUN and MUO groups presented increasing associations between Lp(a) and CVEs and such association was stronger in the MUO group. In Cox regression analysis, Lp(a) >50 mg/dl was associated with a 2.032- and 2.206-fold higher risk of subsequent CVEs in the MUO and MUN subgroups, respectively.

Conclusion

Among patients with angiography-proven stable CAD, Lp(a) had a more significant prognostic value in both MUO and MUN individuals regardless of obesity, suggesting the importance of screening for cardiovascular risk with Lp(a) in metabolically unhealthy patients.

Lipoprotein (a) and Cardiovascular Disease: A Missing Link for Premature Atherosclerotic Heart Disease and/or Residual Risk

ABSTRACT

Lipoprotein(a) or lipoprotein "little a" is an under-recognized causal risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD), including coronary atherosclerosis, aortic valvular stenosis, ischemic stroke, heart failure and peripheral arterial disease. Elevated plasma Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL or ≥100 nmol/L) is commonly encountered in almost 1 in 5 individuals and confers a higher CV risk compared to those with normal Lp(a) levels, although such normal levels have not been generally agreed upon. Elevated Lp(a) is considered a cause of premature and accelerated atherosclerotic CVD. Thus, in patients with a positive family or personal history of premature coronary artery disease (CAD), Lp(a) should be measured. However, elevated Lp(a) may confer increased risk for incident CAD even in the absence of a family history of CAD, and even in those who have guideline-lowered LDL-cholesterol (<70 mg/dl) and continue to have a persisting CV residual risk. Thus, measurement of Lp(a) will have a significant clinical impact on the assessment of atherosclerotic CVD risk, and will assume a more important role in managing patients with CVD with the advent and clinical application of specific Lp(a)-lowering therapies. Conventional therapeutic approaches like lifestyle modification and statin therapy remain ineffective at lowering Lp(a). Newer treatment modalities, such as gene silencing via RNA interference with use of antisense oligonucleotide(s) or small interfering RNA molecules targeting Lp(a) seem very promising. These issues are herein reviewed, accumulated data are scrutinized, meta-analyses and current guidelines are tabulated and Lp(a)-related CVDs and newer therapeutic modalities are pictorially illustrated.

Persistence of Lipoproteins and Cholesterol Alterations after Sepsis: Implication for Atherosclerosis Progression

(1) Background: Sepsis is one of the most common critical care illnesses with increasing survivorship. The quality of life in sepsis survivors is adversely affected by several co-morbidities, including increased incidence of dementia, stroke, cardiac disease and at least temporary deterioration in cognitive dysfunction. One of the potential explanations for their progression is the persistence of lipid profile abnormalities induced during acute sepsis into recovery, resulting in acceleration of atherosclerosis. (2) Methods: This is a targeted review of the abnormalities in the long-term lipid profile abnormalities after sepsis; (3) Results: There is a well-established body of evidence demonstrating acute alteration in lipid profile (HDL-c ↓↓, LDL-C -c ↓↓). In contrast, a limited number of studies demonstrated depression of HDL-c levels with a concomitant increase in LDL-C -c in the wake of sepsis. VLDL-C -c and Lp(a) remained unaltered in few studies as well. Apolipoprotein A1 was altered in survivors suggesting abnormalities in lipoprotein metabolism concomitant to overall lipoprotein abnormalities. However, most of the studies were limited to a four-month follow-up and patient groups were relatively small. Only one study looked at the atherosclerosis progression in sepsis survivors using clinical correlates, demonstrating an acceleration of plaque formation in the aorta, and a large metanalysis suggested an increase in the risk of stroke or acute coronary event between 3% to 9% in sepsis survivors. (4) Conclusions: The limited evidence suggests an emergence and persistence of the proatherogenic lipid profile in sepsis survivors that potentially contributes, along with other factors, to the clinical sequel of atherosclerosis.