👤 Ainhoa Robles-Mezcua

Reducing residual cardiovascular risk following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains a major unmet clinical need. Despite substantial advances in lipid-lowering therapies, the risk of recurrent major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) after ACS remains high, with an estimated incidence of approximately 33.4% at 5 years. Residual cardiovascular risk is driven by multiple mechanisms, including persistent inflammation, a prothrombotic status, metabolic disturbances, and the presence of atherogenic lipoproteins beyond low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a pro-inflammatory, prothrombotic, and pro-atherosclerotic lipoprotein that appears to play a major role in residual risk after ACS or ischemic stroke. Elevated Lp(a) is a well-established independent and causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Nevertheless, evidence regarding its prognostic value specifically after ACS remains limited, with marked heterogeneity across studies, which complicates direct comparisons and interpretation. In addition, while Lp(a) levels are predominantly genetically determined, recent studies have reported intra-individual variability, although their clinical significance remains uncertain. Finally, current therapeutic options specifically targeting Lp(a) are limited. Novel RNA-based therapies, including antisense oligonucleotides, small interfering RNAs, and emerging gene-editing approaches, have demonstrated profound and sustained reductions in circulating Lp(a) levels. Yet, whether this biological effect translates into reductions in hard clinical endpoints is under evaluation in ongoing clinical trials. This review aims to synthesize current evidence on the role of Lp(a) as a major contributor to residual cardiovascular risk following ACS. Show less

Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) is frequently found in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM); there is little information about its frequency and distribution pattern according to the underlying genetic substrate. We sought to describe LGE patterns according to genotypes and to analyse the risk of major ventricular arrhythmias (MVA) according to patterns. Cardiac magnetic resonance findings and LGE distribution according to genetics were performed in a cohort of 600 DCM patients followed at 20 Spanish centres. After exclusion of individuals with multiple causative gene variants or with variants in infrequent DCM-causing genes, 577 patients (34% females, mean age 53.5 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 36.9 ± 13.9%) conformed to the final cohort. A causative genetic variant was identified in 219 (38%) patients, and 147 (25.5%) had LGE. Significant differences were found comparing LGE patterns between genes (P < 0.001). LGE was absent or rare in patients with variants in TNNT2, RBM20, and MYH7 (0, 5, and 20%, respectively). Patients with variants in DMD, DSP, and FLNC showed a predominance of LGE subepicardial patterns (50, 41, and 18%, respectively), whereas patients with variants in TTN, BAG3, LMNA, and MYBPC3 showed unspecific LGE patterns. The genetic yield differed according to LGE patterns. Patients with subepicardial, lineal midwall, transmural, and right ventricular insertion points or with combinations of LGE patterns showed an increased risk of MVA compared with patients without LGE. LGE patterns in DCM have a specific distribution according to the affected gene. Certain LGE patterns are associated with an increased risk of MVA and with an increased yield of genetic testing. Show less