What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Observational. Population: ischemic heart disease (n=575). Intervention: Elevated Lp(a) levels (>50 mg/dL) vs. Lp(a) ≤50 mg/dL. Primary outcome: recurrence of at least one coronary event (p=0.015).

What question did this study set out to answer?

This study aims to determine the association between elevated Lp(a) levels and the extent of coronary artery disease in ischemic heart disease patients and its effect on lipid-control targets.

June 13, 2026European Journal of Preventive Cardiology

Extension of coronary artery disease and resistance to lipid-lowering treatment. Value of Lp(a)

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

Elevated Lp(a) >50 mg/dL is linked to ~38% higher coronary event recurrence in ischemic heart disease.

P=0.015
n=575

Why the study?

Are elevated Lp(a) levels associated with greater coronary artery disease burden and difficulty achieving lipid-control targets in patients with ischemic heart disease?

Key Points

This study aims to determine the association between elevated Lp(a) levels and the extent of coronary artery disease in ischemic heart disease patients and its effect on lipid-control targets.
Retrospective observational study of 575 patients with ischemic heart disease treated in a Cardiac Rehabilitation Unit from January 2023 to November 2025.
Collected and analyzed demographic, clinical, and angiographic data based on Lp(a) levels.
Statistical analysis performed using SPSS v23.
Elevated Lp(a) levels (>50 mg/dL) in 240 patients were associated with higher rates of premature ischemic heart disease (55.96% vs. 38.28%, p<0.001) and recurrence of coronary events (54.79% vs. 39.72%, p=0.015).
A greater proportion of patients with high Lp(a) had multivessel coronary artery disease (48.57% vs. 36.16%, p=0.003).
Patients with Lp(a) above 75 mg/dL had poorer rates of achieving LDL targets, with only 36.64% meeting the target compared to 26.83% (p=0.021).

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=575)

Structured PICO

Are elevated Lp(a) levels associated with greater coronary artery disease burden and difficulty achieving lipid-control targets in patients with ischemic heart disease?

Population

575 patients with ischemic heart disease treated in a Cardiac Rehabilitation Unit, evaluated for the impact of Lp(a) levels on coronary disease burden and lipid control.

Exposure

Elevated Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels (>50 mg/dL or >75 mg/dL)

Comparator

Normal or lower Lp(a) levels

Outcome

Coronary artery disease burden (multivessel disease, premature ischemic heart disease, recurrence of events) and achievement of LDL-control targetssurrogate

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 54.79% vs 39.72%

p-value: p=0.015

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Implication

Elevated Lp(a) serves as a marker for greater coronary atheroma burden, higher event recurrence, and increased difficulty in achieving lipid-control targets in secondary prevention.

Cite This Study

Sierra et al. (2026) conducted an observational in ischemic heart disease (n=575). Elevated Lp(a) levels (>50 mg/dL) vs. Lp(a) ≤50 mg/dL was evaluated on recurrence of at least one coronary event (p=0.015). Elevated Lp(a) >50 mg/dL was associated with a higher recurrence of coronary events (54.79% vs. 39.72%, p=0.015) and greater multivessel disease burden in patients with ischemic heart disease.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a2cf4aefaef96ed7f056ecf https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwag249.201

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Implication

Elevated Lp(a) serves as a marker for greater coronary atheroma burden, higher event recurrence, and increased difficulty in achieving lipid-control targets in secondary prevention.

Extension of coronary artery disease and resistance to lipid-lowering treatment. Value of Lp(a)

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Discussion

Implication

Cite This Study

Extension of coronary artery disease and resistance to lipid-lowering treatment. Value of Lp(a)

Key Points

Study Design

Structured PICO

Main Result

Discussion

Implication

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider