Is there a benefit of aspirin therapy for primary prevention to reduce the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in patients with elevated Lipoprotein (a)-A review of the evidence

Aspirin has long been recognized as a beneficial treatment for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) due to its antiplatelet effects. However, there is a need to more precisely identify individuals who would benefit from aspirin therapy for primary prevention in order to reduce the risk of ASCVD. Those with elevated lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] levels are at increased risk of ASCVD. In this article, we provide an overview of studies that have explored the use of aspirin therapy in individuals with elevated Lp(a). We discuss the potential mechanisms by which aspirin therapy may reduce ASCVD risk, and present a review of the data on the effectiveness of aspirin therapy in reducing ASCVD risk in individuals with elevated Lp(a). The presented evidence suggests that individuals with elevated Lp(a) benefit more from aspirin therapy for reduction of ASCVD events than the general population.

Outcomes of Mechanical Thrombectomy Compared With Systemic Thrombolysis in Pulmonary Embolism: A Comprehensive Evaluation From the National Inpatient Sample Database

BACKGROUND

Systemic thrombolysis (ST) may not be ideal for many patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) due to bleeding risk. In this analysis, we evaluated the safety and effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) as an alternative to ST for acute PE.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years who underwent MT and/or ST for PE were identified from the National Inpatient Sample database from 2016 to 2017. Patients who underwent catheter-directed thrombolysis were excluded. We compared in-hospital outcomes of both groups in this retrospective study.

RESULTS

Of 16 890 patients who received an intervention for acute PE, 1380 (8.2%) received MT and 15 510 (91.8%) received ST. There was no difference in age between both groups. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in patients who received MT than that in those who received ST (11.9% vs 20.6%, odds ratio [OR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-0.93, p=0.028). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of periprocedural bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and acute kidney injury between the 2 groups (p≥0.608 for all). Patients who received MT had a higher rate of respiratory complications (19.0% vs 11.6%, OR: 1.79, 95% CI: 1.06-3.03, p=0.030) and discharge to an outside facility (34.1% vs 19.2%, OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.41-3.37, p<0.001) than those who received ST.

CONCLUSION

Mortality was significantly lower with MT than that with ST, but larger randomized studies are needed to validate this. The use of MT should be individualized on the basis of the patients' clinical presentation, risk profile, and local resources.

CLINICAL IMPACT

In this study, we utilized the National Inpatient Sample database to study the in-hospital outcomes of pulmonary embolism patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy compared to those who underwent systemic thrombolysis. We found that the patients who were diagnosed with pulmonary embolism and underwent mechanical thrombectomy had significantly lower mortality compared to those who were treated using systemic thrombolysis. This study was the first of its kind, utilizing the national inpatient sample database for evaluation of mechanical thrombectomy in comparison with the standard of care. These result would direct further randomized controlled trials for better evaluation of the utilization of mechanical thrombectomy in the correct clinical context. Furthermore, our study demonstrated comparable peri-operative complications between the mechanical thrombectomy group and the systemic thrombolysis group. These results would direct clinicians to consider mechanical thrombectomy if clinically indicated given the promising results.