4.4 Article

Impact of Lipoprotein(a) as Residual Risk on Long-Term Outcomes in Patients After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 115, Issue 2, Pages 157-160

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.10.015

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [23591063]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23591063] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cardiovascular risk remains uncertain in patients with cardiovascular disease despite achieving target lipid levels. Serum levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] can be risk factors for adverse events. The aim of this study was to determine the role of Lp(a) as a residual risk factor in patients who achieve target lipid levels by the time of treatment by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A total of 3,508 patients were treated by PCI from 1997 to 2011 at our institution. Among them, we analyzed consecutive 569 patients who achieved target lipid levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/di, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol >= 40 mg/dl, and triglycerides <150 mg/dl at PCI. A total of 411 eligible patients were assigned to groups according to Lp(a) levels of >= 30 mg/dl (high Lp(a); n = 119) or <30 mg/dl (low Lp(a); n = 292). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death and acute coronary syndrome. The median follow-up period was 4.7 years. Cumulative event-free survival was significantly worse for the group with high Lp(a) than with low Lp(a) group (p = 0.04). Multivariate analysis selected a high Lp(a) level as an independent predictor of primary outcomes (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.70, p = 0.04). In conclusion, a high Lp(a) value >= 30 mg/dl) could be associated with a poor prognosis after PCI even for patients who achieved target lipid levels. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available