Is Lipoprotein(a) Clinically Actionable with Today's Evidence? The Answer is Yes.

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.

Clinical significance of incidentally detected lead perforations by computed tomography.

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.

Inclisiran creates unique opportunities and challenges for patient access to therapy: early experience in a United States Lipid Clinic.

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.

Software-Estimated Stone Volume Is Better Predictor of Spontaneous Passage for Acute Nephrolithiasis.

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 (