Lipoprotein(a) and Long-Term Recurrent Infarction After an Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is an emerging risk factor for incident ischemic heart disease. However, its role in risk stratification in in-hospital survivors to an index acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is scarcer, especially for predicting the risk of long-term recurrent AMI. We aimed to assess the relation between Lp(a) and very long-term recurrent AMI after an index episode of AMI. It is a retrospective analysis that included 1,223 consecutive patients with an AMI discharged from October 2000 to June 2003 in a single-teaching center. Lp(a) was assessed during index admission in all cases. The relation between Lp(a) at discharge and total recurrent AMI was evaluated through negative binomial regression. The mean age of the patients was 67.0 ± 12.3 years, 379 (31.0%) were women, and 394 (32.2%) were diabetic. The index event was more frequently non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (66.0%). The median Lp(a) was 28.8 (11.8 to 63.4) mg/100 ml. During a median follow-up of 9.9 (4.6 to 15.5) years, 813 (66.6%) deaths and 1,205 AMI in 532 patients (43.5%) occurred. Lp(a) values were not associated with an increased risk of long-term all-cause mortality (p = 0.934). However, they were positively and nonlinearly associated with an increased risk of total long-term reinfarction (p = 0.016). In the subgroup analysis, there was no evidence of a differential effect for the most prevalent subgroups. In conclusion, after an AMI, elevated Lp(a) values assessed during hospitalization were associated with an increased risk of recurrent reinfarction in the very long term. Further prospective studies are warranted to evaluate their clinical implications.

Influence of the medical treatment schedule in new diagnoses patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) guidelines recommend treating all patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with quadruple therapy, although they do not establish how to start it. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of these recommendations, analyzing the efficacy and safety of the different therapeutic schedules. METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective, observational, and multicenter registry that evaluated the treatment initiated in patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF and its evolution at 3 months. Clinical and analytical data were collected, as well as adverse reactions and events during follow-up. Five hundred and thirty-three patients were included, selecting four hundred and ninety-seven, aged 65.5 ± 12.9 years (72% male). The most frequent etiologies were ischemic (25.5%) and idiopathic (21.1%), with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 28.7 ± 7.4%. Quadruple therapy was started in 314 (63.2%) patients, triple in 120 (24.1%), and double in 63 (12.7%). Follow-up was 112 days [IQI 91; 154], with 10 (2%) patients dying. At 3 months, 78.5% had quadruple therapy (p < 0.001). There were no differences in achieving maximum doses or reducing or withdrawing drugs (< 6%) depending on the starting scheme. Twenty-seven (5.7%) patients had any emergency room visits or admission for HF, less frequent in those with quadruple therapy (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: It is possible to achieve quadruple therapy in patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF early. This strategy makes it possible to reduce admissions and visits to the emergency room for HF without associating a more significant reduction or withdrawal of drugs or significant difficulty in achieving the target doses.