RESUMO
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Lipoprotein(a) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. We review the ongoing shifts in consensus guidelines for the testing and management of Lp(a) and provide insight into whether current evidence suggests that awareness and testing of Lp(a) is clinically actionable. RECENT FINDINGS: GWAS and Mendelian randomization studies have established causal links between elevated Lp(a) and forms of CVD, including CAD and calcific aortic valve disease. Testing of Lp(a) identifies patients with similar risk to that of heterozygous FH, enhances risk stratification in patients with borderline/intermediate risk as determined through traditional factors, and facilitates the assessment of inherited CVD risk through cascade screening in patients with known family history of elevated Lp(a). Reductions in Lp(a) through non-targeted therapies including PCSK9 inhibition and lipoprotein apheresis have demonstrated reductions in ASCVD risk that are likely attributable to lowering Lp(a). Targeted therapies to potently lower Lp(a) are in clinical development. Lp(a) is actionable, and can be used to identify high risk patients for primary prevention and their family members through cascade screening, and to guide intensification of therapy in primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD.
Assuntos
Estenose da Valva Aórtica , Doenças Cardiovasculares , Humanos , Lipoproteína(a) , Pró-Proteína Convertase 9 , Fatores de Risco , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Doenças Cardiovasculares/diagnósticoAssuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Metformina , Estado Pré-Diabético , Humanos , Metformina/uso terapêutico , Estado Pré-Diabético/tratamento farmacológico , Estado Pré-Diabético/epidemiologia , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/epidemiologiaRESUMO
Purpose: To evaluate whether computer program-estimated urolith stone volume (SV) was a better predictor of spontaneous passage (SP) compared with program-estimated stone diameter (PD) or manually measured stone diameter (MD), and whether utilizing SV and MD together provided additional value in SP prediction compared with MD alone. Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients with acute renal colic and single renal/ureteral stone on CT from July 2017 to April 2020. Diameter obtained from radiology reports or manually measured when report not available. Semiautomated stone analysis software (qSAS) was used to estimate SV and PD. ROC analysis was performed to compare accuracy of SV vs MD vs PD in predicting SP by 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Subgroup analysis was performed by stone size (≥6 mm) and location (proximal/distal). Results: Among 172 patients analyzed, SP occurred in 71 (41%). Patient age (mean 53), gender (38%F), and stone history/side did not differ significantly by SP. Average MD, PD, and SV were significantly smaller among SP stones vs stones requiring surgery (MD 4.3 mm vs 8.0 mm, PD 5.5 mm vs 9.4 mm, and SV 40 mm3 vs 312 mm3; p < 0.001). ROC analysis showed significantly higher area under curve (AUC) for SV for predicting SP by 4 and 6 weeks compared with MD and PD (AUC 0.93 vs 0.86 vs 0.85 4 weeks, p < 0.001; 0.92 vs 0.85 vs 0.86 6 weeks, p < 0.003). AUC difference between SV vs MD was much greater among stones ≥6 mm or proximal stones. Utilizing SV and MD together yielded improved positive predictive value and negative predictive value for SP prediction. Conclusions: SV is a more accurate predictor of SP compared with linear stone dimensions, especially in the setting of larger and/or more proximal stones. Utilizing SV and diameter together yielded improved SP predictions compared with using either metric alone. Prospective studies are indicated to investigate the clinical utility of SV for SP prediction.
Assuntos
Cálculos Renais , Cálculos Ureterais , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estudos Prospectivos , Remissão Espontânea , Cálculos Ureterais/diagnóstico por imagem , SoftwareRESUMO
We report an early experience with inclisiran, an siRNA targeting PCSK9 administered by a healthcare professional, in an academic lipid clinic. 37 patients were prescribed inclisiran, age (mean±SD) 66±13 years, 26 (70%) women, 32 (87%) White, LDL-C 113±62 mg/dL, 18 (49%) with ASCVD and 19 (51%) with HeFH. Most patients were referred to alternate injection centers. Inclisiran was approved by insurance for 25 (68%), denied for 9 (24%), with 3 under review. While 100% of patients with Medicare obtained access to inclisiran, only 3 of 12 (25%) patients with non-Medicare insurance received approval. Approved patients were older (72±8 vs 52±13 years, p<0.001), disproportionately Medicare enrollees (88%, p<0.001), less had HeFH (40% vs 89%, p=0.019), more had ASCVD (60% vs 11%, p=0.019), less were on a statin (28% vs 78%, p=0.017), and pre-treatment LDL-C was higher (121±65 vs 77±40 mg/dL, p=0.039). These findings have implications for the future of inclisiran in the U.S. and whether inclisiran can be made more accessible, including to younger patients with non-Medicare insurance.
Assuntos
Anticolesterolemiantes , Pró-Proteína Convertase 9 , Humanos , Feminino , Estados Unidos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Masculino , LDL-Colesterol , Inibidores de PCSK9 , RNA Interferente Pequeno , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de SaúdeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) has an established role in detecting perforation of implanted pacemaker and defibrillator leads. The clinical significance of incidental finding of delayed lead perforation remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of lead perforation as detected by CT in a cohort of patients undergoing transvenous laser lead extraction and characterize the association between finding of incidental lead perforation with periprocedural outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive patients that underwent chest CT and lead extraction were retrospectively assessed for presence of lead perforation. A total of 143 patients and 348 leads were assessed. The finding of lead perforation was correlated with findings from peri-procedural transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and outcomes of the lead extraction procedure. RESULTS: Lead perforations (including perforations <5 mm and ≥5 mm) were detected in 66 (46%) patients and 73 (21%) leads. Lead perforation ≥5 mm were less common and detected in 13 (9%) of patients and 14 (4%) of leads. There was no significant difference in the rates of peri-procedural death, cardiac avulsion, cardiac tamponade or post-extraction pericardial effusion in patients with and without lead perforation. CONCLUSIONS: Incidental delayed lead perforations detected by CT are common and do not correlate with significant TEE findings or adverse peri-procedural outcomes in patients undergoing lead extraction. Larger studies are needed to further characterize the frequency and safety of these findings.