4.1 Article

Retrospective Analysis of Long-term Lipid Apheresis at a Single Center

期刊

THERAPEUTIC APHERESIS AND DIALYSIS
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 143-152

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-9987.2009.00747.x

关键词

Cholesterol; Coronary artery disease; Lipid apheresis; Lipoprotein (a); Major cardiovascular event; Myocardial infarction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We retrospectively analyzed 10 906 lipid apheresis sessions (heparin-induced lipoprotein precipitation, direct adsorption of lipoproteins, double filtration plasmapheresis, dextran sulfate adsorption, and immunoadsorption) in 38 patients who were consecutively treated in our department during the last 20 years. The incidences of major cardiovascular events (MACE) (death, cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, limb amputation, and renal vascular involvement) were taken separately as primary end-points or as a combined end-point. The time-course of secondary end-points (coronary and extracranial status of arteries, left ventricular function, occlusive artery disease, and calculated glomerular filtration rate [cGFR]) were also evaluated, as well as the extent of the reduction in plasma lipids and lipoproteins and the incidence of therapy associated side-effects. MACE decreased from 7.02% events per patient per year at the start of lipid apheresis to 1.17% during lipid apheresis and the rate of myocardial revascularization decreased from 22.8% to 3.8% per patient per year. Classical (diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension, and smoking history), as well as novel risk factors (cGFR < 60 mL/min, statin withdrawal, mixed hyperlipoproteinemia, and elevated lipoprotein (a)) were associated with an elevated risk for MACE. All applied methods had comparable effects. All lipid apheresis methods proved to be safe and suitable for long-term treatment. The present data demonstrate that treatment with lipid apheresis is very effective and leads to long-term reduction in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据