Functional approach to investigate Lp(a) in ischaemic heart and cerebral diseases

Lipoprotein (a) level as a risk factor for stroke and its subtype: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The role of lipoprotein-A [Lp (a)] as a risk factor for stroke is less well documented than for coronary heart disease. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis for the published observational studies in order to investigate the association of Lp (a) levels with the risk of stroke and its subtypes. In our meta-analysis, 41 studies involving 7874 ischemic stroke (IS) patients and 32,138 controls; 13 studies for the IS subtypes based on TOAST classification and 7 studies with 871 Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) cases and 2865 control subjects were included. A significant association between increased levels of Lp (a) and risk of IS as compared to control subjects was observed (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CIs) 0.53-0.99). Lp (a) levels were also found to be significantly associated with the risk of large artery atherosclerosis (LAA) subtype of IS (SMD 0.68; 95% CI 0.01-1.34) as well as significantly associated with the risk of ICH (SMD 0.65; 95% CI 0.13-1.17) as compared to controls. Increased Lp (a) levels could be considered as a predictive marker for identifying individuals who are at risk of developing IS, LAA and ICH.

Lipoprotein (a) and Stroke

Background and Purpose— The relationship between elevated lipoprotein (a) levels[Lp(a)] and stroke is controversial. We systematically reviewed the literature to determine whether Lp(a) is a risk factor for stroke.

Methods— We searched MEDLINE (1966 to 2006), EMBASE (1974 to 2006), and Google scholar for articles on Lp(a) and cerebrovascular disease. From potentially relevant references retrieved, we excluded uncontrolled studies, studies of children with stroke, studies investigating carotid atherosclerosis, and studies lacking adequate data.

Results— Thirty-one studies comprising 56 010 subjects with >4609 stroke events met all inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. In case-control studies (n=23 with 2600 strokes) unadjusted mean Lp(a) was higher in stroke patients (standardized mean difference, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.54) and was more frequently abnormally elevated (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.57 to 3.63). Sensitivity analysis and meta-regression did not find any influence of study design, measurement period of Lp(a) in relationship to stroke episode, subtype, age, and sex to explain the substantial heterogeneity between studies (I 2 =83.7%; P <0.001). There was no evidence of publication bias. In nested case-control studies (n=3 with 364 strokes) Lp(a) was not a risk factor for incident stroke (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.8). In prospective cohort studies (n=5 with >1645 strokes), incident stroke was more frequent in patients in the highest tertile of Lp(a) distribution compared with the lowest tertile of Lp(a) (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.43). There was no publication bias or heterogeneity in the prospective studies (I 2 =0.00%; P =0.67).

Conclusion— This meta-analysis suggests that elevated Lp(a) is a risk factor for incident stroke.

Significance of apolipoprotein(a) phenotypes in acute coronary syndromes: relation with clinical presentation

BACKGROUND

High lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels and small-sized apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] phenotypes have been linked to acute coronary syndromes (ACS). We sought to determine whether Lp(a) concentrations and apo(a) phenotypes may be related to the clinical syndrome of presentation among ACS patients.

METHODS

Two hundred ten ACS patients and 105 controls were enrolled. One hundred thirteen patients presented with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and 97 with unstable angina pectoris (UAP). Lp(a) concentrations were determined by ELISA and apo(a) isoforms were detected with a high-resolution immunoblotting method.

RESULTS

Lp(a) levels and the percentage of subjects with at least one small-sized apo(a) isoform were significantly higher both in AMI patients and in UAP subjects as compared with controls. Among ACS patients, the percentage of subjects with at least one small apo(a) phenotype was significantly higher in patients who presented with AMI than in those with UAP (p<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the presence of at least one small-sized apo(a) isoform was associated with AMI as the patient's clinical syndrome of presentation (OR=2.51, 95% CI: 1.38-4.58, p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Among ACS patients, apo(a) isoforms of low molecular weight were associated with AMI onset. High-resolution apo(a) phenotyping might be helpful to identify individuals at high risk for developing AMI.