ArticleHeart and vessels2026
Prognostic significance of high Lipoprotein(a) levels in patients with coronary artery spasm.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2026. 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has recently regained attention in prognostic research. However, data remain limited for patients without significant coronary artery stenosis confirmed angiographically and those who do not undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and studies focusing specifically on patients with coronary artery spasm (CAS) are even more scarce. In this study, a total of 1,373 patients with positive intracoronary provocation testing with acetylcholine (ACH) and insignificant coronary artery stenosis were divided into two groups based on Lp(a) levels: the high Lp(a) group (≥50 mg/dL) and the low Lp(a) group (< 50 mg/dL). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE); secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE1) and MACCE1 with recurrent angina (MACCE2). Multiple imputation was followed by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), and Cox regression analysis was used to analyze 10-year clinical outcomes. There was no significant difference in MACE, MACCE1, or MACCE2 between the two groups. Before IPTW adjustment, the high Lp(a) group had a higher incidence of revascularization (0.9% vs. 3.3%; p = 0.033), but this difference was not significant after IPTW adjustment (p = 0.118). Although there was no significant group difference, a notable proportion of patients experienced recurrent angina requiring angiography (25.3% vs. 30.8%; p = 0.615). In conclusion, although Lp(a) is an established independent risk factor, it did not show prognostic significance in CAS patients in the absence of significant coronary artery stenosis and PCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42162404What 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.