Alexander H Nave1, Kristin S Lange2, Christopher O Leonards2, Bob Siegerink2, Wolfram Doehner3, Ulf Landmesser4, Elisabeth Steinhagen-Thiessen5, Matthias Endres6, Martin Ebinger7. 1. Center for Stroke Research Berlin (CSB), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; Klinik und Hochschulambulanz für Neurologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: alexander.nave@charite.de. 2. Center for Stroke Research Berlin (CSB), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. 3. Center for Stroke Research Berlin (CSB), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Berlin, Germany. 4. German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Berlin, Germany; Department of Cardiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. 5. Department of Geriatrics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany. 6. Center for Stroke Research Berlin (CSB), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; Klinik und Hochschulambulanz für Neurologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Berlin, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Berlin, Germany. 7. Center for Stroke Research Berlin (CSB), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; Klinik und Hochschulambulanz für Neurologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] harbors atherogenic potential but its role as a risk factor for ischemic stroke remains controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the relative strength of the association between Lp(a) and ischemic stroke and identify potential subgroup-specific risk differences. METHODS: A systematic search using the MeSH terms "lipoproteins" OR "lipoprotein a" AND "stroke" was performed in PubMed and ScienceDirect for case-control studies from June 2006 and prospective cohort studies from April 2009 until December 20th 2014. Data from eligible papers published before these dates were reviewed and extracted from previous meta-analyses. Studies that assessed the relationship between Lp(a) levels and ischemic stroke and reported generic data-i.e. odds ratio [OR], hazard ratio, or risk ratio [RR]-were eligible for inclusion. Studies that not distinguish between ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke and transient ischemic attack were excluded. Random effects meta-analyses with mixed-effects meta-regression were performed by pooling adjusted OR or RR. RESULTS: A total of 20 articles comprising 90,904 subjects and 5029 stroke events were eligible for the meta-analysis. Comparing high with low Lp(a) levels, the pooled estimated OR was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.26-1.57) for case-control studies (n = 11) and the pooled estimated RR was 1.29 (95% CI, 1.06-1.58) for prospective studies (n = 9). Sex-specific differences in RR were inconsistent between case-control and prospective studies. Study populations with a mean age of ≤55 years had an increased RR compared to older study populations. Reported Lp(a) contrast levels and ischemic stroke subtype significantly contributed to the heterogeneity observed in the analyses. CONCLUSION: Elevated Lp(a) is an independent risk factor for ischemic stroke and may be especially relevant for young stroke patients. Sex-specific risk differences remain conflicting. Further studies in these subgroups may be warranted.
OBJECTIVE: Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] harbors atherogenic potential but its role as a risk factor for ischemic stroke remains controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the relative strength of the association between Lp(a) and ischemic stroke and identify potential subgroup-specific risk differences. METHODS: A systematic search using the MeSH terms "lipoproteins" OR "lipoprotein a" AND "stroke" was performed in PubMed and ScienceDirect for case-control studies from June 2006 and prospective cohort studies from April 2009 until December 20th 2014. Data from eligible papers published before these dates were reviewed and extracted from previous meta-analyses. Studies that assessed the relationship between Lp(a) levels and ischemic stroke and reported generic data-i.e. odds ratio [OR], hazard ratio, or risk ratio [RR]-were eligible for inclusion. Studies that not distinguish between ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke and transient ischemic attack were excluded. Random effects meta-analyses with mixed-effects meta-regression were performed by pooling adjusted OR or RR. RESULTS: A total of 20 articles comprising 90,904 subjects and 5029 stroke events were eligible for the meta-analysis. Comparing high with low Lp(a) levels, the pooled estimated OR was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.26-1.57) for case-control studies (n = 11) and the pooled estimated RR was 1.29 (95% CI, 1.06-1.58) for prospective studies (n = 9). Sex-specific differences in RR were inconsistent between case-control and prospective studies. Study populations with a mean age of ≤55 years had an increased RR compared to older study populations. Reported Lp(a) contrast levels and ischemic stroke subtype significantly contributed to the heterogeneity observed in the analyses. CONCLUSION: Elevated Lp(a) is an independent risk factor for ischemic stroke and may be especially relevant for young strokepatients. Sex-specific risk differences remain conflicting. Further studies in these subgroups may be warranted.
Authors: Cara Lea Smith; Matthew Seigerman; Srinath Adusumalli; Jay Giri; Paul N Fiorilli; Daniel M Kolansky; Taisei Kobayashi Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 2.931
Authors: Azadeh Beheshtian; Sanyog G Shitole; Alan Z Segal; Dana Leifer; Russell P Tracy; Daniel J Rader; Richard B Devereux; Jorge R Kizer Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2016-08-20 Impact factor: 5.162