4078Lipoprotein(a) and clinical outcomes in patients after revascularization of peripheral arteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Randomized trials have proved the reduction of cardiovascular events due to LDL-cholesterol level decrease. However, despite high-intensity statin therapy, there is a residual risk, that could be associated with lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]. It has been shown that there is an association between elevated Lp(a) level and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease. Data about the role of Lp(a) in the development of cardiovascular events after revascularization of peripheral arteries are scarce. Purpose To evaluate the relationship of Lp(a) level with cardiovascular outcomes after revascularization of carotid and lower limbs arteries. Methods The study included 258 patients with severe carotid and/or lower extremity artery disease, who underwent successful elective revascularization. The primary endpoint was the composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. The secondary endpoint was the composite of transitory ischaemic attack, limb amputation, hospitalization for unstable angina, or revascularization surgery. Results During 36 months follow-up 29 (11%) primary and 113 (44%) secondary endpoints were registered. It was noted greater rate of primary (21 [8%] vs. 8 [3%]; hazard ratio [HR], 3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5–6.3; p<0.01) and secondary endpoints (72 [28%] vs. 41 (16%], HR, 2.5; 95% CI 1.7–3.7; p<0.01) in patients with elevated Lp(a) level (≥30 mg/dl) compared to patients with Lp(a) <30 mg/dl (Picture). Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analysis revealed that Lp(a) was independently associated with incidence of cardiovascular outcomes. Conclusions Patients with peripheral artery diseases have a high risk of cardiovascular events and the level of Lp(a) ≥30 mg/dl is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events in prospective 3-year follow-up after revascularization of carotid and lower limbs arteries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".