Lipoprotein(a) and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Previous Myocardial Infarction: A Prospective Cohort Study

Inverse Association of Lipoprotein(a) on Long-Term Bleeding Risk in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease: Insight from a Multicenter Cohort in Asia

BACKGROUND

 Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), has been recognized as a strong risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, the relationship between Lp(a) and bleeding remains indistinct, especially in the secondary prevention population of coronary artery disease (CAD). This investigation aimed to evaluate the association of Lp(a) with long-term bleeding among patients with CAD.

METHODS

 Based on a prospective multicenter cohort of patients with CAD consecutively enrolled from January 2015 to May 2019 in China, the current analysis included 16,150 participants. Thus, according to Lp(a) quintiles, all subjects were divided into five groups. The primary endpoint was bleeding at 2-year follow-up, and the secondary endpoint was major bleeding at 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

 A total of 2,747 (17.0%) bleeding and 525 (3.3%) major bleeding were recorded during a median follow-up of 2.0 years. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed the highest bleeding incidence in Lp(a) quintile 1, compared with patients in Lp(a) quintiles 2 to 5 (p < 0.001), while the incidence of major bleeding seemed similar between the two groups. Moreover, restricted cubic spline analysis suggested that there was an L-shaped association between Lp(a) and 2-year bleeding after adjustment for potential confounding factors, whereas there was no significant association between Lp(a) and 2-year major bleeding.

CONCLUSION

 There was an inverse and L-shaped association of Lp(a) with bleeding at 2-year follow-up in patients with CAD. More attention and effort should be made to increase the clinician awareness of Lp(a)'s role, as a novel marker for bleeding risk to better guide shared-decision making in clinical practice.

A focused update to the 2019 NLA scientific statement on use of lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice

Since the 2019 National Lipid Association (NLA) Scientific Statement on Use of Lipoprotein(a) in Clinical Practice was issued, accumulating epidemiological data have clarified the relationship between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level and cardiovascular disease risk and risk reduction. Therefore, the NLA developed this focused update to guide clinicians in applying this emerging evidence in clinical practice. We now have sufficient evidence to support the recommendation to measure Lp(a) levels at least once in every adult for risk stratification. Individuals with Lp(a) levels <75 nmol/L (30 mg/dL) are considered low risk, individuals with Lp(a) levels ≥125 nmol/L (50 mg/dL) are considered high risk, and individuals with Lp(a) levels between 75 and 125 nmol/L (30-50 mg/dL) are at intermediate risk. Cascade screening of first-degree relatives of patients with elevated Lp(a) can identify additional individuals at risk who require intervention. Patients with elevated Lp(a) should receive early, more-intensive risk factor management, including lifestyle modification and lipid-lowering drug therapy in high-risk individuals, primarily to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an indication for lipoprotein apheresis (which reduces both Lp(a) and LDL-C) in high-risk patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and documented coronary or peripheral artery disease whose Lp(a) level remains ≥60 mg/dL [∼150 nmol/L)] and LDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. Although Lp(a) is an established independent causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and despite the high prevalence of Lp(a) elevation (∼1 of 5 individuals), measurement rates are low, warranting improved screening strategies for cardiovascular disease prevention.

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.

Exploring the role of lipoprotein(a) in cardiovascular diseases and diabetes in Chinese population

A high level of lipoprotein (a) in the plasma has been associated with a variety of cardiovascular diseases and is considered to be an independent predictor of some other diseases. Based on recent studies, the concentration levels of Lp(a) in the Chinese population exhibit a distinctive variation from other populations. In the Chinese population, a high level of Lp(a) indicates a higher incidence of revascularization, platelet aggregation, and thrombogenicity following PCI. Increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in Chinese population has been linked to higher levels of Lp(a), according to studies. More specifically, it has been found that in Chinese populations, higher levels of Lp(a) were linked to an increased risk of coronary heart disease, severe aortic valve stenosis, deep vein thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injuries, central vein thrombosis in patients receiving hemodialysis, and stroke. Furthermore, new and consistent data retrieved from several clinical trials also suggest that Lp (a) might also play an essential role in some other conditions, including metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes and cancers. This review explores the clinical and epidemiological relationships among Lp(a), cardiovascular diseases and diabetes in the Chinese population as well as potential Lp(a) underlying mechanisms in these diseases. However, further research is needed to better understand the role of Lp(a) in cardiovascular diseases and especially diabetes in the Chinese population.

Circulating Total Bilirubin and Long-Term Prognosis in Patients With Previous Myocardial Infarction

Background

Although experimental studies have demonstrated the protective role of total bilirubin (TBil) in cardiovascular diseases, several previous clinical observations are controversial. More importantly, no data are currently available regarding the relation of TBil to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with previous myocardial infarction (MI).

Objectives

This study sought to explore the association between TBil and long-term clinical outcomes in patients with previous MI.

Methods

A total of 3,809 patients who are post-MI were consecutively enrolled in this prospective study. Cox regression models using HRs and CIs were applied to investigate associations between the TBil concentration category (group 1: bottom to median tertiles within the reference range; group 2: top tertile; group 3: above reference range) and main outcome (recurrent MACE) as well as secondary outcomes (hard endpoints and all-cause mortality).

Results

During the 4-year follow-up period, 440 patients (11.6%) suffered from recurrent MACE. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed the lowest MACE incidence in group 2 (P < 0.001). When compared with the reference group (group 1) in multivariable analysis, a J-shaped association was apparent for MACE, with decreased risk in group 2 (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.59-0.96) and elevated risk in group 3 (HR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.03-1.61). Similar associations were identified regarding hard endpoints and all-cause mortality. Moreover, TBil demonstrated incremental discriminatory strength when added to the predictive model.

Conclusions

In this prospective cohort study with long-term follow-up, higher TBil levels within the physiological range reduced the incidence of long-term cardiovascular events in patients who are post-MI.

Association of lipoprotein(a) with coronary severity in patients with new-onset acute myocardial infarction: A large cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Although current evidence suggests a causal association between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and cardiovascular disease, there is still no consensus on its association with coronary severity in new-onset acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We explored the association of Lp(a) with coronary severity.

METHODS

In this large cross-sectional study, we enrolled 2,740 patients with new-onset AMI from the Zhongda Hospital affiliated to Southeast University. Lp(a) was considered as an exposure variable. Gensini score, left main disease and three-vessel disease were used to assess coronary severity. Multivariate logistic regression, restricted cubic spline (RCS) models and threshold effects were used to analyze the association of Lp(a) with coronary severity.

RESULTS

Multivariate adjusted models showed that Lp(a) was independently associated with Gensini score (≥100), left main disease and three-vessel disease [Q4 vs Q1, OR (95 % CI), P value: 2.301 (1.770, 2.992), P < 0.001; 1.743 (1.174, 2.587), P = 0.006; 1.431 (1.128, 1.816), P = 0.003; respectively], and the associations persisted in sensitivity analyses and most subgroups (P < 0.05). Additionally, the RCS showed that Lp(a) was nonlinearly associated with Gensini score (continuous variable), Gensini score (≥100) and three-vessel disease (P for nonlinearity < 0.05). Threshold effects analysis showed that Lp(a) above the inflection point was positively associated with Gensini score (continuous variable) as well as the risk of Gensini score (≥100) and three-vessel disease.

CONCLUSION

Lp(a) was closely associated with coronary severity represented by Gensini score, left main disease and three-vessel disease in patients with new-onset AMI.

Circulating lipoprotein (a) and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

AIMS

To investigate the association between circulating lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality in the general population and in patients with chronic diseases, and to elucidate the dose-response relations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched literature to find prospective studies reporting adjusted risk estimates on the association of Lp(a) and mortality outcomes. Forty-three publications, reporting on 75 studies (957,253 participants), were included. The hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI ) for the top versus bottom tertile of Lp(a) levels and risk of all-cause mortality were 1.09 (95%CI: 1.01-1.18, I²: 75.34%, n = 19) in the general population and 1.18 (95%CI: 1.04-1.34, I²: 52.5%, n = 12) in patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVD). The HRs for CVD mortality were 1.33 (95%CI: 1.11-1.58, I²: 82.8%, n = 31) in the general population, 1.25 (95%CI: 1.10-1.43, I²: 54.3%, n = 17) in patients with CVD and 2.53 (95%CI: 1.13-5.64, I²: 66%, n = 4) in patients with diabetes mellitus. Linear dose-response analyses revealed that each 50 mg/dL increase in Lp(a) levels was associated with 31% and 15% greater risk of CVD death in the general population and in patients with CVD. No non-linear dose-response association was observed between Lp(a) levels and risk of all-cause or CVD mortality in the general population or in patients with CVD (P_nonlinearity > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study provides further evidence that higher Lp(a) levels are associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and CVD-death in the general population and in patients with CVD. These findings support the ESC/EAS Guidelines that recommend Lp(a) should be measured at least once in each adult person's lifetime, since our study suggests those with higher Lp(a) might also have higher risk of mortality.

Lipoprotein(a) predicts recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with prior cardiovascular events post-PCI: five-year findings from a large single center cohort study

Background

It is well established that lipoprotein(a)[Lp(a)] play a vital role in atherosclerosis. Whether Lp(a) can predict recurrence of cardiovascular events (CVEs) in prior CVEs patients is still unclear. We aim to investigate its association with subsequent long-term adverse events in this high-risk population.

Methods

A total of 4,469 patients with prior CVEs history after PCI were consecutively enrolled and categorized according Lp(a) values of < 10 (low), 10 to 30 (medium), and ≥ 30 mg/dL (high). The primary endpoint was MACCE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke and unplanned revascularization.

Results

During an average of 5.0 years of follow-up, 1,078 (24.1%) and 206 (4.6%) patients experienced MACCE and all-cause death with 134 (3.0%) of whom from cardiac death. The incidence of MACCE, all-cause death and cardiac death were significantly higher in the high Lp(a) group (p < 0.05). After adjustment of confounding factors, high Lp(a) level remained an independent risk factor for MACCE (adjusted HR 1.240, 95%CI 1.065–1.443, p = 0.006), all-cause death (adjusted HR 1.445, 95%CI 1.023–2.042, p = 0.037) and cardiac death (adjusted HR 1.724, 95%CI 1.108–2.681, p = 0.016). This correlation remained significant when treated as a natural logarithm-transformed continuous variable. This finding is relatively consistent across subgroups and confirmed again in two sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

Our present study confirmed that Lp(a) was an independent predictor for recurrent CVEs in patients with established CVEs, illustrating that Lp(a) level might be a valuable biomarker for risk stratification and prognostic assessment in this high-risk population.

Lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis: a European Atherosclerosis Society consensus statement

This 2022 European Atherosclerosis Society lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] consensus statement updates evidence for the role of Lp(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve stenosis, provides clinical guidance for testing and treating elevated Lp(a) levels, and considers its inclusion in global risk estimation. Epidemiologic and genetic studies involving hundreds of thousands of individuals strongly support a causal and continuous association between Lp(a) concentration and cardiovascular outcomes in different ethnicities; elevated Lp(a) is a risk factor even at very low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. High Lp(a) is associated with both microcalcification and macrocalcification of the aortic valve. Current findings do not support Lp(a) as a risk factor for venous thrombotic events and impaired fibrinolysis. Very low Lp(a) levels may associate with increased risk of diabetes mellitus meriting further study. Lp(a) has pro-inflammatory and pro-atherosclerotic properties, which may partly relate to the oxidized phospholipids carried by Lp(a). This panel recommends testing Lp(a) concentration at least once in adults; cascade testing has potential value in familial hypercholesterolaemia, or with family or personal history of (very) high Lp(a) or premature ASCVD. Without specific Lp(a)-lowering therapies, early intensive risk factor management is recommended, targeted according to global cardiovascular risk and Lp(a) level. Lipoprotein apheresis is an option for very high Lp(a) with progressive cardiovascular disease despite optimal management of risk factors. In conclusion, this statement reinforces evidence for Lp(a) as a causal risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes. Trials of specific Lp(a)-lowering treatments are critical to confirm clinical benefit for cardiovascular disease and aortic valve stenosis.