ArticleLipids in health and disease2025
Association between lipoprotein(a) levels, cumulative lipoprotein(a) burden, and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a large-scale cohort study.
Article in Lipids in health and disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo determine whether lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and cumulative Lp(a) (CumLp(a)) are associated with adverse outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
methodsThis cohort study included 2,634 hospitalized patients diagnosed with AMI who underwent coronary angiography at Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University, from July 2013, to December 2021. The main outcome was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as cardiovascular (CV) death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or unplanned revascularization—occurring singly or in combination. We used Cox proportional hazards models, with subgroup and sensitivity analyses, restricted cubic spline (RCS) modeling, and threshold-effect assessment to evaluate the relationships between Lp(a), CumLp(a), and prognosis.
resultsAcross a median 55.2-month follow-up, 907 participants (34.40%) experienced a MACCE, 342 (13.00%) patients had CV death, 177 (6.70%) patients had non-fatal MI, 202 (7.70%) patients had non-fatal stroke, 399 (15.10%) patients underwent unplanned revascularization, and all-cause death occurred in 547 (20.80%) patients. Multivariable Cox regression models demonstrated a significantly increased risk of MACCE, CV death, non-fatal MI, and non-fatal stroke in both the higher Lp(a) and higher CumLp(a) groups compared with the lower groups (HRs for Lp(a): 1.652, 2.157, 3.455, and 1.930; HRs for CumLp(a): 1.697, 1.675, 3.759, and 2.032), and every one-unit rise in CumLp(a), the risk of MACCE, CV death, non-fatal MI and non-fatal stroke increased by 1.3%, 1.4%, 1.9% and 1.2%, respectively. The majority of subgroup and sensitivity checks consistently supported a stable link between Lp(a)/CumLp(a) and the risks of MACCE, CV death, non-fatal MI, and stroke. Analyses using RCS and threshold models revealed that Log10(Lp(a)) had both nonlinear and threshold effects on the risks of MACCE and each single event other than unplanned revascularization, while log10-transformed CumLp(a) showed nonlinear and threshold associations only with MACCE, CV death, and non-fatal MI (nonlinearity P < 0.05).
conclusionsHigher levels of Lp(a) and CumLp(a) are linked to a greater risk of poor outcomes among patients with AMI as the index event, highlighting their potential value for risk stratification and guiding clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.