Lipoprotein Apheresis: Current Recommendations for Treating Familial Hypercholesterolemia and Elevated Lipoprotein(a).

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and hyperlipoproteinemia(a) are relatively common disorders, posing a significant health burden due to increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Development of electronic health record-based strategies with a linkage to the genetic test results has increased awareness, detection, and control of heritable lipid disorders. This review attempts to critically examine available data to provide a summary of the current evidence for lipoprotein apheresis in FH and elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)). REVIEW FINDINGS: Availability and indications for lipoprotein apheresis vary across the globe. On average, greater than 60% of atherogenic apoB-containing lipoproteins are immediately reduced following a single procedure, translating in substantial reduction of incident ASCVD events, and preventing accelerated vascular aging. Simultaneous lipid-lowering therapy targeting low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and Lp(a) enhances the efficacy of lipoprotein apheresis. Lipoprotein apheresis alters the proteomics of the lipoprotein particles, including reduction in the concentration of the oxidized-LDL and Lp(a) particles, and proinflammatory apoE bound to HDL particles and remnant lipoproteins. Other effects attributed to lipoprotein apheresis include improvement in blood rheology, endothelial function, microvascular flow, myocardial perfusion, reduction in circulating inflammatory markers. Development of lipoprotein apheresis registries provides data on benefits, challenges, and barriers to inform pertinent healthcare policies. Lipoprotein apheresis is a safe and effective procedure for lowering cholesterol in patients with combined and isolated FH and elevated Lp(a). It reduces the burden of ASCVD and improves long-term prognosis. A team approach is required by the patient, medical staff, and healthcare provider to initiate and maintain a lipoprotein apheresis program.

The development of lipoprotein apheresis in Saxony in the last years.

METHODS: Three hundred thirty-nine patients (230 men, 109 women) treated with lipoprotein apheresis in Saxony, Germany, in 2018 are described in terms of age, lipid pattern, risk factors, cardiovascular events, medication, and number of new admissions since 2014, and the data are compared with figures from 2010 to 2013. RESULTS: Patients were treated by 45.5 physicians in 16 lipoprotein apheresis centers. With about 10 patients per 100 000 inhabitants, the number of patients treated with lipoprotein apheresis in Saxony is twice as high as in Germany as a whole. The median treatment time was 3 years. Almost all patients had hypertension; type 2 diabetes mellitus was seen significantly more often in patients with low Lipoprotein(a). Cardiovascular events occurred in almost all patients before initiation of lipoprotein apheresis, under apheresis therapy the cardiovascular events rate was very low in this high-risk group. For some cardiovascular regions even no events could be observed. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of lipoprotein apheresis in Saxony had been increasing from 2010 to 2018.

Single Ascending Dose Study of a Short Interfering RNA Targeting Lipoprotein(a) Production in Individuals With Elevated Plasma Lipoprotein(a) Levels.

Importance: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is an important risk factor for atherothrombotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis, for which there are no treatments approved by regulatory authorities. Objectives: To assess adverse events and tolerability of a short interfering RNA (siRNA) designed to reduce hepatic production of apolipoprotein(a) and to assess associated changes in plasma concentrations of Lp(a) at different doses. Design, Setting, and Participants: A single ascending dose study of SLN360, an siRNA targeting apolipoprotein(a) synthesis conducted at 5 clinical research unit sites located in the US, United Kingdom, and Australia. The study enrolled adults with Lp(a) plasma concentrations of 150 nmol/L or greater at screening and no known clinically overt cardiovascular disease. Participants were enrolled between November 18, 2020, and July 21, 2021, with last follow-up on December 29, 2021. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive placebo (n = 8) or single doses of SLN360 at 30 mg (n = 6), 100 mg (n = 6), 300 mg (n = 6), or 600 mg (n = 6), administered subcutaneously. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was evaluation of safety and tolerability. Secondary outcomes included change in plasma concentrations of Lp(a) to a maximum follow-up of 150 days. Results: Among 32 participants who were randomized and received the study intervention (mean age, 50 [SD, 13.5] years; 17 women [53%]), 32 (100%) completed the trial. One participant experienced 2 serious adverse event episodes: admission to the hospital for headache following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and later for complications of cholecystitis, both of which were judged to be unrelated to study drug. Median baseline Lp(a) concentrations were as follows: placebo, 238 (IQR, 203-308) nmol/L; 30-mg SLN360, 171 (IQR, 142-219) nmol/L; 100-mg SLN360, 217 (IQR, 202-274) nmol/L; 300-mg SLN360, 285 (IQR, 195-338) nmol/L; and 600-mg SLN360, 231 (IQR, 179-276) nmol/L. Maximal median changes in Lp(a) were -20 (IQR, -61 to 3) nmol/L, -89 (IQR, -119 to -61) nmol/L, -185 (IQR, -226 to -163) nmol/L, -268 (IQR, -292 to -189) nmol/L, and -227 (IQR, -270 to -174) nmol/L, with maximal median percentage changes of -10% (IQR, -16% to 1%), -46% (IQR, -64% to -40%), -86% (IQR, -92% to -82%), -96% (IQR, -98% to -89%), and -98% (IQR, -98% to -97%), for the placebo group and the 30-mg, 100-mg, 300-mg, and 600-mg SLN360 groups, respectively. The duration of Lp(a) lowering was dose dependent, persisting for at least 150 days after administration. Conclusions and Relevance: In this phase 1 study of 32 participants with elevated Lp(a) levels and no known cardiovascular disease, the siRNA SLN360 was well tolerated, and a dose-dependent lowering of plasma Lp(a) concentrations was observed. The findings support further study to determine the safety and efficacy of this siRNA. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04606602; EudraCT Identifier: 2020-002471-35.

Síndrome de quilomicronemia: aspectos genéticos y revisión de la literatura / Chylomicronemia syndrome: genetic aspects and literature review

Chylomicronemia syndrome is a metabolic condition characterized by severe hypertriglyceridemia and fasting chylomicronemia, secondary to an alteration in the ability to metabolize triglycerides. It can respond to different etiologies, the most frequent being multifactorial. Familial chylomicronemia syndrome, on the other hand, represents an infrequent cause of chylomicronemia syndrome, showing an autosomal recessive inheritance pattern. It's caused by pathogenic variants in genes related to chylomicron's metabolism, mainly LPL1 gene. One of the main associated risks is the occurrence of acute pancreatitis, which can also have a recurrent course. The primary therapy goal in patients with this condition is prevention of pancreatitis and related comorbidities. The treatment basis consists in reduce chylomicron formation by restriction of dietary fat, in association with physical activity and pharmacologic therapy. It is important to distinguish the etiology of chylomicronemia syndrome since it has repercussions in terms of response to treatment, complications, and recurrence risk. (AU)

Emerging RNA Therapeutics to Lower Blood Levels of Lp(a): JACC Focus Seminar 2/4.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has risen to the level of an accepted cardiovascular disease risk factor, but final proof of causality awaits a randomized trial of Lp(a) lowering. Inhibiting apolipoprotein(a) production in the hepatocyte with ribonucleic acid therapeutics has emerged as an elegant and effective solution to reduce plasma Lp(a) levels. Phase 2 clinical trials have shown that the antisense oligonucleotide pelacarsen reduced mean Lp(a) levels by 80%, allowing 98% of subjects to reach on-treatment levels of <125 nmol/l (∼50 mg/dl). The phase 3 Lp(a)HORIZON (Assessing the Impact of Lipoprotein(a) Lowering With TQJ230 on Major Cardiovascular Events in Patients With CVD) outcomes trial is currently enrolling approximately 7,680 patients with history of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and symptomatic peripheral arterial disease and controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol to pelacarsen versus placebo. The co-primary endpoints are major adverse cardiovascular events in subjects with Lp(a) >70 mg/dl and >90 mg/dl, in which either of the two being positive will lead to a successful trial. Additional ribonucleic acid-targeted therapies to lower Lp(a) are in preclinical and clinical development. The testing of the Lp(a) hypothesis will provide proof whether Lp(a)-mediated risk can be abolished by potent Lp(a) lowering.

Expert position statements: comparison of recommendations for the care of adults and youth with elevated lipoprotein(a).

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Summarize recent recommendations on clinical management of adults and youth with elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] who are at-risk of or affected by cardiovascular disease (CVD). RECENT FINDINGS: There is ample evidence to support elevated Lp(a) levels, present in approximately 20% of the general population, as a causal, independent risk factor for CVD and its role as a significant risk enhancer. Several guidelines and position statements have been published to assist in the identification, treatment and follow-up of adults with elevated levels of Lp(a). There is growing interest in Lp(a) screening and strategies to improve health behaviors starting in youth, although published recommendations for this population are limited. In addition to the well established increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke and valvular aortic stenosis, data from the coronavirus pandemic suggest adults with elevated Lp(a) may have a particularly high-risk of cardiovascular complications. Lp(a)-specific-lowering therapies are currently in development. Despite their inability to lower Lp(a), use of statins have been shown to improve outcomes in primary and secondary prevention. SUMMARY: Considerable differences exist amongst published guidelines for adults on the use of Lp(a) in clinical practice, and recommendations for youth are limited. With increasing knowledge of Lp(a)'s role in CVD, including recent observations of COVID-19-related risk of cardiovascular complications, more harmonized and comprehensive guidelines for Lp(a) in clinical practice are required. This will facilitate clinical decision-making and help define best practices for identification and management of elevated Lp(a) in adults and youth.

Cardiovascular events in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and hyperlipoproteinaemia (a): Indications for lipoprotein apheresis in Poland.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) is a safe method of reducing atherogenic lipoproteins and improving cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. We aimed to assess the reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] levels in patients undergoing regular LA therapy and to evaluate its influence on the incidence rate of adverse cardiac and vascular events (ACVE) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). METHODS: A longitudinal study in Poland evaluated the prospective and retrospective observational data of 23 patients with hyperlipoproteinaemia (a) [hyper-Lp(a)] and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), undergoing 1014 LA sessions between 2013 and 2020. Their pre- and post-apheresis LDL-C and Lp(a) levels were assessed to calculate the acute percent reductions. The time period used to evaluate annual rates of ACVE and MACE before and after initiation of LA was matched in each patient. RESULTS: The pre-apheresis LDL-C and Lp(a) concentrations were 155 (107-228) (mg/dL) (median and interquartile range) and 0.56 (0.14-1.37) (g/L), respectively. LA therapy resulted in a reduction of LDL-C to 50 (30-73.5) (mg/dL) and of Lp(a) to 0.13 (0.05-0.34) (g/L), representing a percent reduction of 70.0% and 72.7% for LDL-C and Lp(a), respectively. We found a significant reduction in the annual rate of ACVE (0.365[0.0-0.585] vs (0.0[0.0-0.265]; P = .047) and MACE (0.365[0.0-0.585] vs 0.0[0.0-0.265]; P = .031). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our study indicate that LA treatment in patients with hyperlipoproteinaemia (a) and FH on maximally tolerated lipid lowering therapies leads to a substantial reduction in LDL-C and Lp(a) concentrations and lowers CV event rates in Polish patients.

Therapeutic Apheresis for Management of Lp(a) Hyperlipoproteinemia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: High lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) level is an independent cardiovascular risk factor with higher prevalence among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The actual problem is that most currently available lipid-lowering drugs are unable to abolish Lp(a) pathogenicity. Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) is an effective method for elimination of atherogenic lipoproteins, but it is approved only in some countries for treatment of elevated Lp(a) level in the presence of progressive ASCVD. In recent years, new studies on LA were published and the purpose of this review is to present the information on optimal management of Lp(a) hyperlipoproteinemia by LA in the modern era. RECENT FINDINGS: Most clinical studies designed to treat Lp(a) hyperlipoproteinemia with different LA systems are small in size but demonstrate that the elimination of Lp(a) from bloodstream leads to reduction of inflammatory and prothrombotic process in a few months and to atherosclerotic plaques regression in 1.5 years. Treatment with LA for 2 to 5 years in terms of clinical trials and in real-world setting provides further evidence that Lp(a) reduction by 60-80% is associated with proportional decreasing of rate and risk of cardiovascular events. Specific Lp(a) apheresis is the only possible method that solely targets Lp(a). In most countries, non-specific LA is used for treatment Lp(a) hyperlipoproteinemia in very high-risk subjects with progressive ASCVD. PCSK9 inhibitors have only modest effect on significantly elevated Lp(a), whereas large population-based studies requested sustained and prolonged reduction of Lp(a) levels by 50-100 mg/dL to gain proportional decreasing of major adverse cardiovascular events.

The dedicated "Lp(a) clinic": A concept whose time has arrived?

The emergence of pathophysiological, epidemiologic, and genetic data strongly supports the causality for lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD). In parallel, novel Lp(a) lowering approaches have been developed that have re-invigorated clinical interest in Lp(a). Because Lp(a) is the most prevalent monogenetic lipid disorder globally, with prevalence of Lp(a) > 50 mg/dL estimated at >1.4 billion people, the rationale for diagnosing and managing Lp(a)-mediated risk is now stronger than ever. Patients with elevated Lp(a) are significantly under-diagnosed and the diagnosis is frequently made ad hoc rather than systematically. Elevated Lp(a) levels are associated with atherothrombotic risk and patients present with varied clinical phenotypes, ranging from stroke in pediatric age groups, to ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in young males, to CAVD in elderly individuals. A new clinical care paradigm of a dedicated "Lp(a) Clinic" would serve to evaluate and manage such patients who have elevated Lp(a) as the pathophysiological etiology. Such a clinic would include multidisciplinary expertise in lipid metabolism, clinical cardiology, vascular medicine, valvular disease, thrombosis, and pediatric aspects of clinical care. This viewpoint argues for the rationale of an Lp(a) outpatient clinic where patients with elevated Lp(a) and their affected relatives can be referred, evaluated, managed and followed, to ultimately reduce Lp(a)-mediated CVD and CAVD risk.

Actual situation of lipoprotein apheresis in patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) levels.

An elevation of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an internationally recognized atherogenic risk factor, documented in epidemiological studies, in studies with Mendelian randomization and in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). At present, no drug is available to effectively reduce its concentration. In Germany, an elevation of Lp(a) associated with progressive cardiovascular diseases is officially recognized as an indication for a lipoprotein apheresis (LA). The number of patients who were treated with LA with this abnormality was steadily increasing in the years 2013-2016 - the official data are reported. In all new patients, who started to be treated at our LA center in 2017 (n = 20) the increased Lp(a) was a main indication for extracorporeal therapy, though some of them also showed clearly elevated LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations despite being treated with a maximal tolerated lipid-lowering drug therapy. A diabetes mellitus was seen in 5 patients. The higher was the Lp(a) level before the first LA session, the higher was the cardiovascular risk. Lp(a) concentrations measured before LA sessions were usually about 20% lower than those before the start of the LA therapy. Acutely, Lp(a) levels were reduced by about 70%. Following LA sessions the Lp(a) levels increased and in the majority reach pre-session concentrations after one week. Thus a weekly interval is best for the patients, but a few may need two sessions per week to stop the progress of atherosclerosis. The interval mean values were about 39% lower than previous levels. Several papers had been published showing a higher efficiency of LA therapy on the incidence of cardiovascular events in patients with high Lp(a) values when comparing with hypercholesterolemic patients with normal Lp(a) concentrations. Russian specific anti-Lp(a) columns positively affected coronary atherosclerosis. PCSK9 inhibitors reduce Lp(a) concentrations in many patients and in this way have a positive impact on cardiovascular outcomes. In the future, an antisense oligonucleotide against apolipoprotein(a) may be an alternative therapeutic option, provided a clear-cut reduction of cardiovascular events will be demonstrated.

Influence of lipoprotein apheresis on circulating plasma levels of miRNAs in patients with high Lp(a).

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) is a well-established therapy for lowering lipid levels in serious cases of dyslipidaemia, including high levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]. This method lowers both LDL cholesterol and Lp(a) by more than 60% in most of patients; however, because randomized clinical studies could be extremely difficult, also other markers of the effect of this procedures on vascular health are of importance. Therefore, in addition to changes in plasma lipids and Lp(a) during LA, we also analysed the response of biomarkers associated with vascular integrity: small non-coding microRNAs (miRNAs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed the changes in miRNAs in two women (age 70 and 72 years) with clinically manifest extensive and progressive atherosclerotic disease and high levels of Lp(a) and with different clinical course who were treated by LA. In both women we analysed changes of 175 circulating plasma miRNAs using pre-defined serum/plasma focus panels at the beginning of and one year after the therapy. RESULTS: In addition to reduced levels of plasma lipids and Lp(a), circulating plasma levels of miR-193a-5p; -215-5p; -328-3p; -130a-3p; -362-3p; -92b-3p decreased, and levels of miR-125a-5p; -185-5p; -106a-5p; -320b; -19a increased (all P < 0.05) in both women. Moderate differences were found between both women with regard to the different course of atherosclerotic disease. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term LA substantially changes circulating plasma miRNAs associated with vascular integrity reflected different clinical course in both women. If confirmed, this approach could improve the assessment of the effectiveness of this therapy on an individual basis.

Lipoprotein apheresis - Shortening of treatment intervals reduces cardiovascular events: Case reports.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein (Lp-) apheresis is a life-long therapy, usually performed in weekly intervals. In some cases, however, atherosclerotic disease progresses despite adequate therapy with weekly Lp-apheresis and maximal lipid lowering medication. In an attempt to improve the effectiveness of therapy, we temporarily shortened treatment intervals of Lp-apheresis in patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and further progression of coronary atherosclerosis despite weekly Lp-apheresis and maximal lipid lowering medication. METHODS: We illustrate three case reports of patients with elevated Lp(a), who underwent regular weekly Lp-apheresis treatment for secondary prevention. The intensified treatment protocol contained three therapies in two weeks (alternating 2 per week and 1 per week). RESULTS: The shortening of treatment intervals achieved a stabilization of atherosclerotic disease in case 1. After a total of 68 therapies in 52 weeks (1.31 sessions/week) the elective coronary angiography revealed excellent long-term results. In case 2, the intensified treatment protocol is still ongoing. The patient reported a decrease in angina pectoris and an increase in exercise capacity since the beginning of more frequent therapy sessions. In some cases, as it is shown in case 3, a fast decision for shortening the treatment intervals is necessary. CONCLUSIONS: The intensified treatment regimen resulted in an improvement in clinical symptoms and no further progression of atherosclerosis. In conclusion, shorter therapeutic Lp-apheresis intervals, at least temporarily, should be considered in patients who suffer from clinical and/or angiographic progression of atherosclerosis, despite maximal lipid lowering medication and weekly Lp-apheresis.

Lipoprotein apheresis in Germany - Still more commonly indicated than implemented. How can patients in need access therapy?

BACKGROUND: Although lipid-lowering drugs, especially statins, and recently also PCSK9 inhibitors can reduce LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and decrease the risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) including coronary artery disease (CAD) events most efficiently, only 5-10% of high-risk cardiovascular patients reach the target values recommended by international guidelines. In patients who cannot be treated adequately by drugs it is possible to reduce increased LDL-C and/or lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) values by the use of lipoprotein apheresis (LA) with the potential to decrease severe CVD events in the range of 70%->80%. Even in Germany, a country with well-established reimbursement guidelines for LA, knowledge about this life-saving therapy is unsatisfactory in medical disciplines treating patients with CVD. Starting in 1996 our aim was to offer LA treatment following current guidelines for all patients in the entire region of our clinic as standard of care. METHODS: Based on the experience of our large apheresis competence center overlooking now nearly 80,000 LA treatments in the last two decades, we depict the necessary structure for identification of patients, defining indication, referral, implementation and standardisation of therapy as well as for reimbursement. LA is unfamiliar for most patients and even for many practitioners and consultants. Therefore nephrologists performing more than 90% of LA in Germany have to form a network for referral and ongoing medical education, comprising all regional care-givers, general practitioners as well as the respective specialists and insurances or other cost bearing parties for offering a scientifically approved therapeutic regimen and comprehensive care. The German Lipid Association (Lipid-Liga) has implemented the certification of a lipidological competence center as an appropriate way to realize such a network structure. RESULTS: Working as a lipidological and apheresis competence center in a region of 400,000 to 500,000 inhabitants, today we treat 160 patients in the chronic LA program. In spite of the availability of PCSK9 inhibitors since 2015, LA has remained as an indispensable therapeutic option for targeted lipid lowering treatment. An analysis of nearly 37,000 LA treatments in our own center documented a >80% reduction of cardiovascular events in patients treated by regular LA when comparing with the situation before the start of the LA therapy. We have implemented the concept of an apheresis competence center characterised by ongoing medical education with a focus on lipidological and cardiovascular aspects, interdisciplinary networking and referral. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence and prevalence of LA patients in our region demonstrate that based on our ongoing patient-centered approach the access of patients in need to LA is substantially above the German average, thus contributing to an extraordinary reduction of cardiovascular events in the population we in particular feel responsible for.

Lipoprotein apheresis in Austria - Reduction of cardiovascular events by regular lipoprotein apheresis treatment.

BACKGROUND: In Austria, about 12 patients per 1 million inhabitants are treated currently with lipoprotein (LP-) apheresis. In 2016 it has been suggested, that about 5000 patients were treated worldwide with LP-apheresis, more than half of them in Germany. Regular LP-apheresis aims to decrease apolipoprotein B-rich lipoproteins and to reduce cardiovascular events. In this analysis we present the current situation of LP-apheresis in Austria and we evaluated the cardiovascular event rate 2 years before versus 2 years after starting LP-apheresis. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 30 patients (19 men and 11 women) was performed at Athos Institute, Vienna, Austria. The study period included two years prior versus two years after the beginning of LP-apheresis. Cardiovascular events and interventions were defined as regarding the coronary (MACE) or the non-coronary (peripheral, cerebral or renal) vascular system. RESULTS: The first cardiovascular event before treatment initiation occurred at a mean age of 48.4 years (range 34-73), treatment was started at a mean age of 55.6 years (range 34-73). The mean rate of incidence of cardiovascular events per patient per 2 years before beginning of LP-apheresis (y-2 and y-1) versus 2 years during treatment (y+1 and y+2) was reduced by 77.78% (1.50 versus 0.33 events/patient/2 years, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The significant reduction in MACE and vascular disease during regular LP-apheresis at weekly intervals is consistent with data from the literature. Difficulties arise in comparing such studies due to different definition of events or interventions and different study durations. However, LP-apheresis is an efficient treatment option and causes significantly prolonged event-free survival for patients at risk.

Lipoprotein apheresis in the management of severe hypercholesterolemia and hyperlipoproteinemia(a)-The Portuguese experience.

BACKGROUND: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) are established causal risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Lipoprotein apheresis is often required for treatment of patients with a high risk for CVD due to hypercholesterolemia and/or hyperlipoproteinemia(a). AIM: To describe our experience with lipoprotein apheresis in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia or with hyperlipoproteinemia(a). METHODS: We retrospectively investigated patients treated with Lipoprotein apheresis using direct adsorption of lipoproteins (DALI) technique, between December 2008 and March 2018, in our center. Adverse events, acute and long term reductions in lipid parameters were analyzed. RESULTS: Between December 2008 and March 2018, a total of 950 treatments were performed in five patients, four with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH), all on maximally tolerated cholesterol-lowering drug therapy and in one patient with hyperlipoproteinemia(a) and progressive CVD. In the four patients with HeFH we obtained mean acute reductions in LDL-C and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) of 62.0 ± 7.8% and 60.4 ± 6.8%, respectively. Regarding long-term efficacy we achieved a mean reduction of 43.1% in LDL-C and of 41.2% in non-HDL-C. In the patient with hyperlipoproteinemia(a) we attained mean acute reductions of 60.4 ± 6.4% in Lp(a) and of 75.4 ± 7.3% in LDL-C per session and long term reductions in Lp(a) and LDL-C of 67.4% and 40.5%, respectively. Adverse events were recorded in only 1.2% of treatments. CONCLUSION: Lipoprotein apheresis is an efficient and safe treatment in severely hypercholesterolemic patients who are refractory to conservative lipid-lowering therapy or with hyperlipoproteinemia(a) and progressive CVD.

Apheresis to Mitigate Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic apheresis is a term used to describe a group of treatments where blood components are separated in real time, and one component is removed, exchanged, and/or treated to remove pathogenic substances from the circulation. Plasma exchange, which removed all plasma components, and lipid apheresis which selectively removes lipoproteins from circulation, have both been used to treat atherosclerotic vascular diseases. METHODS: To review the literature regarding the application of therapeutic apheresis for atherosclerotic vascular diseases. RESULTS: Primarily lipid apheresis is used to treat atherosclerotic vascular diseases, particularly familial hypercholesterolemia, lipoprotein (a) hyperlipoproteinemia and peripheral vascular diseases. Lipid apheresis can be used as first line or second line treatment with a strong evidenced-based recommendation. Its use has decreased atherosclerotic events. CONCLUSION: Lipid apheresis is an important therapy for the treatment of familial hypercholesterolemia, lipoprotein (a) hyperlipoproteinemia and peripheral vascular diseases. Lipid apheresis does more than remove low-density lipoproteins and other lipoproteins but also decreases inflammatory markers and improves blood flow.

Lipoprotein apheresis in patients with peripheral artery disease and lipoprotein(a)-hyperlipoproteinemia: 2-year follow-up of a prospective single center study.

OBJECTIVE: Elevated plasma levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], referred to as lipoprotein(a)-hyperlipoproteinemia [Lp(a)-HLP], are an independent risk factor for atherosclerosis. Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) enables an effective reduction of Lp(a) plasma levels. The present study investigates the effects of LA in patients with Lp(a)-HLP and peripheral artery disease (PAD). METHODS: Ten patients with isolated Lp(a)-HLP and severe PAD and who had recently undergone a revascularization (index procedure) were prospectively included in this observational single center study. All patients received weekly LA. Ankle-brachial-index (ABI), transcutaneous partial oxygen pressure (tcpO2), pain level, and walking distance were assessed at baseline and at the follow ups scheduled 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after initiation of LA. The number of revascularizations within 12 months prior and within 24 months after the index procedure was determined. RESULTS: As early as 1 month after initiation of LA, all investigated parameters had improved significantly compared to baseline. This improvement was further substantiated under LA throughout the entire follow-up period. Comparing baseline results with the 24-month follow-up, the average ABI increased from 0.53 ± 0.15 to 0.97 ± 0.08 (P < 0.001). The mean tcpO2 also increased from 42.9 ± 2.3 mmHg to 61 ± 4.6 mmHg (P < 0.001). The improved perfusion led to a reduction of the mean pain level from 7.0 ± 1.5 to 1.1 ± 0.4 (P < 0.001) on a visual analogue scale (VAS) and an extension of the mean walking distance from 87 ± 60 m to 402 ± 119 m (P < 0.001). All patients suffered from severe PAD with a high number of revascularizations in the 12 months prior to the index procedure (35 procedures in 120 patient-months). Since initiation of LA, the number of revascularizations dropped significantly and remained very low during the entire follow-up period (2 procedures in 229 patient-months, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients with Lp(a)-HLP and severe PAD, LA results in sustained improvement of circulation, pain level and walking distance. The number of repeat revascularizations is strongly reduced under LA treatment.