Why the study?
Elevated lipoprotein(a) is associated with peripheral arterial disease, but the clinical role and disease-specific effects of lipoprotein apheresis in this population required review.
Does lipoprotein(a) apheresis reduce major adverse limb events in patients with peripheral arterial disease and elevated lipoprotein(a)?
Does lipoprotein(a) apheresis reduce major adverse limb events in patients with peripheral arterial disease and elevated lipoprotein(a)?
This review highlights the potential of lipoprotein(a) apheresis to reduce major adverse limb events and improve symptoms in patients with peripheral arterial disease and elevated lipoprotein(a).
Lp(a) may be a stronger PAD risk factor than CAD; leaves open whether apheresis improves outcomes in symptomatic patients.
Patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) are at a very high risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Elevated lipoprotein(a) levels have been shown to be a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD) and stroke. More recently elevated lipoprotein(a) levels have also been demonstrated to be associated with prevalent and incident PAD, and even may be a stronger risk factor for PAD compared with CAD. Lipoprotein apheresis is currently the only efficient way to lower lipoprotein(a) levels. Lipoprotein(a) apheresis has been shown to reduce major coronary events in patients with CAD. There is increasing evidence that lipoprotein(a) apheresis also reduces the rate of major adverse limb events such as peripheral revascularizations and amputations in PAD patients, and improves symptoms of PAD such as pain on exertion. This review summarizes the current knowledge on the clinical role of lipoprotein(a) for PAD and the disease-specific effect of lipoprotein(a) apheresis, and suggests indications for screening for and treating of elevated lipoprotein(a) levels in patients with PAD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Weiss et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: