We have located links that may give you full text access.
Visit-to-visit cholesterol variability correlates with coronary atheroma progression and clinical outcomes.
European Heart Journal 2018 July 15
Aims: Utilizing serial intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS), we aimed to exam the association of intra-individual lipid variability, coronary atheroma progression, and clinical outcomes.
Methods and results: We performed a post hoc patient-level analysis of nine clinical trials involving 4976 patients with coronary artery disease who underwent serial coronary IVUS in the setting of a range of medical therapies. We assessed the associations between progression in percent atheroma volume (ΔPAV), clinical outcomes, and visit-to-visit lipid variability including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL-C, total cholesterol (TC)/HDL-C, and apolipoprotein B (ApoB). Variability of lipid parameters was measured using intra-individual standard deviation over 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Atherogenic lipoprotein variability significantly associated with ΔPAV [odds ratio (95% confidence interval; P-value), LDL-C: 1.09 (1.02, 1.17, P = 0.01); non-HDL-C: 1.10 (1.02, 1.18, P = 0.01); TC/HDL-C: 1.14 (1.06, 1.24, P = 0.001); ApoB: 1.13 (1.03, 1.24, P = 0.01)]. Survival curves revealed significant stepwise relationships between cumulative major adverse cardiovascular events and increasing quartiles of atherogenic lipoprotein variability at 24-months follow-up (log-rank P < 0.01 for all lipoproteins except HDL-C). Stronger associations were noted between achieved lipoprotein levels and ΔPAV [LDL-C: 1.27 (1.17, 1.39; P < 0.001); non-HDL-C: 1.32 (1.21, 1.45; P < 0.001); TC/HDL-C: 1.31 (1.19, 1.45; P < 0.001); ApoB: 1.20 (1.07, 1.35; P = 0.003)].
Conclusion: Greater visit-to-visit variability in atherogenic lipoprotein levels significantly associates with coronary atheroma progression and clinical outcomes, although the association between achieved atherogenic lipoproteins and atheroma progression appears stronger. These data highlight the importance of achieving low and consistent atherogenic lipoprotein levels to promote plaque regression and improve clinical outcomes.
Methods and results: We performed a post hoc patient-level analysis of nine clinical trials involving 4976 patients with coronary artery disease who underwent serial coronary IVUS in the setting of a range of medical therapies. We assessed the associations between progression in percent atheroma volume (ΔPAV), clinical outcomes, and visit-to-visit lipid variability including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL-C, total cholesterol (TC)/HDL-C, and apolipoprotein B (ApoB). Variability of lipid parameters was measured using intra-individual standard deviation over 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Atherogenic lipoprotein variability significantly associated with ΔPAV [odds ratio (95% confidence interval; P-value), LDL-C: 1.09 (1.02, 1.17, P = 0.01); non-HDL-C: 1.10 (1.02, 1.18, P = 0.01); TC/HDL-C: 1.14 (1.06, 1.24, P = 0.001); ApoB: 1.13 (1.03, 1.24, P = 0.01)]. Survival curves revealed significant stepwise relationships between cumulative major adverse cardiovascular events and increasing quartiles of atherogenic lipoprotein variability at 24-months follow-up (log-rank P < 0.01 for all lipoproteins except HDL-C). Stronger associations were noted between achieved lipoprotein levels and ΔPAV [LDL-C: 1.27 (1.17, 1.39; P < 0.001); non-HDL-C: 1.32 (1.21, 1.45; P < 0.001); TC/HDL-C: 1.31 (1.19, 1.45; P < 0.001); ApoB: 1.20 (1.07, 1.35; P = 0.003)].
Conclusion: Greater visit-to-visit variability in atherogenic lipoprotein levels significantly associates with coronary atheroma progression and clinical outcomes, although the association between achieved atherogenic lipoproteins and atheroma progression appears stronger. These data highlight the importance of achieving low and consistent atherogenic lipoprotein levels to promote plaque regression and improve clinical outcomes.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app