Citations

Abstract Aims Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) levels are known to be mainly genetically determined. However, only scarce data are available on the intra-individual variability of Lp(a) levels across time. Methods and results We included adult patients (≥18 years old) who had baseline and follow-up Lp(a) measurements (between 1997 and 2024) with a minimum of 1 year apart. Patients were categorized into three groups as follows: normal (<30 mg/dL), borderline (30 to 50 mg/dL), and high Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL). Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to assess the predictors of the intra-individual changes in Lp(a) ≥ 10 mg/dL. A total of 11 669 individuals (median age: 54 years, 60% males) were included in our analysis, with median time between measurements of 4.5 years [interquartile range (IQR): 2.2, 10.6]. The median Lp(a) was 16 mg/dL (IQR: 7, 52) at baseline, compared with 15 mg/dL (IQR: 7, 52) at follow-up. At follow-up, 96.4% of individuals with normal Lp(a) and 89.9% with high Lp(a) remained in their categories, while 51.2% with borderline Lp(a) changed their category. Of the included population, 24.9% had an intra-individual Lp(a) change ≥ 10 mg/dL. Female sex (P < 0.001), history of ASCVD (P = 0.003), statin therapy (P = 0.003), and elevated LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels ≥ 100 mg/dL (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with higher odds of intra-individual Lp(a) changes ≥ 10 mg/dL. Conclusion Lipoprotein(a) levels were generally stable over time; however, patients with borderline levels may require more than one Lp(a) measurement, especially if they are females, have a history of ASCVD, have elevated LDL-C levels, or are on statin therapy.

Lipoprotein (a) is a complex lipid molecule that has sparked immense interest in recent years, after studies demonstrated its significant association with several cardiovascular conditions. Lp(a) promotes cardiovascular disease through its combined proatherogenic, pro-inflammatory, and prothrombotic effects. While the measurement of Lp(a) has become widely available, effective methods to reduce its concentration are currently limited. However, emerging data from ongoing clinical trials involving antisense oligonucleotides have indicated promising outcomes in effectively reducing Lp(a) concentrations. This may serve as a potential therapeutic target in the management and prevention of myocardial infarction, calcific aortic stenosis, and cerebrovascular accidents. In contrast, the role of Lp(a) in atrial fibrillation, in-stent restenosis, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration remains unclear. This review article aims to thoroughly review the existing literature and provide an updated overview of the evidence surrounding the association of Lp(a) and these cardiovascular diseases. We seek to highlight controversies in the existing literature and offer directions for future investigations to better understand Lp(a)’s precise role in these conditions, while providing a summary of its unique molecular characteristics.

Abstract Aims Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has demonstrated its association with atherosclerosis and myocardial infarction. However, its role in the development of in-stent restenosis (ISR) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is not clearly established. The aim of this study is to investigate the association between Lp(a) and ISR. Methods and results A retrospective study of adult patients who underwent successful PCI between January 2006 and December 2017 at the three Mayo Clinic sites and had a preprocedural Lp(a) measurement was conducted. Patients were divided into two groups according to the serum Lp(a) concentration [high Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL and low Lp(a) < 50 mg/dL]. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to compare risk of ISR between patients with high Lp(a) vs. those with low Lp(a). A total of 1209 patients were included, with mean age 65.9 ± 11.7 years and 71.8% were male. Median follow-up after baseline PCI was 8.8 [interquartile range (IQR) 7.4] years. Restenosis was observed in 162 (13.4%) patients. Median serum levels of Lp(a) were significantly higher in patients affected by ISR vs. non-affected cases: 27 (IQR 73.8) vs. 20 (IQR 57.5) mg/dL, P = 0.008. The rate of ISR was significantly higher among patients with high Lp(a) vs. patients with low Lp(a) values (17.0% vs. 11.6%, P = 0.010). High Lp(a) values were independently associated with ISR events (hazard ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.18–2.37, P = 0.004), and this association was more prominent after the first year following the PCI. Conclusion Lipoprotein(a) is an independent predictor for long-term ISR and should be considered in the evaluation of patients undergoing PCI.

Systemic vasculitides are a rare and complex group of diseases that can affect multiple organ systems. Clinically, presentation may be vague and non-specific and as such, diagnosis and subsequent management are challenging. These entities are typically classified by the size of vessel involved, including large-vessel vasculitis (giant cell arteritis, Takayasu’s arteritis, and clinically isolated aortitis), medium-vessel vasculitis (including polyarteritis nodosa and Kawasaki disease), and small-vessel vasculitis (granulomatosis with polyangiitis and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis). There are also other systemic vasculitides that do not fit in to these categories, such as Behcet’s disease, Cogan syndrome, and IgG4-related disease. Advances in medical imaging modalities have revolutionized the approach to diagnosis of these diseases. Specifically, color Doppler ultrasound, computed tomography and angiography, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, or invasive catheterization as indicated have become fundamental in the work up of any patient with suspected systemic or localized vasculitis. This review presents the key diagnostic imaging modalities and their clinical utility in the evaluation of systemic vasculitis.

Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is an underdiagnosed form of infiltrative cardiomyopathy caused by abnormal amyloid fibrils deposited extracellularly in the myocardium and cardiac structures. There can be high variability in its clinical manifestations, and diagnosing CA requires expertise and often thorough evaluation; as such, the diagnosis of CA can be challenging and is often delayed. The application of artificial intelligence (AI) to different diagnostic modalities is rapidly expanding and transforming cardiovascular medicine. Advanced AI methods such as deep-learning convolutional neural networks (CNNs) may enhance the diagnostic process for CA by identifying patients at higher risk and potentially expediting the diagnosis of CA. In this review, we summarize the current state of AI applications to different diagnostic modalities used for the evaluation of CA, including their diagnostic and prognostic potential, and current challenges and limitations.