Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is increasingly recognized as a genetically determined and clinically relevant contributor to residual cardiovascular risk. Through pro-atherogenic, pro-inflammatory, pro-thrombotic, and pro-calcific mechanisms, Lp(a) appears to play a significant role in both coronary artery disease and aortic valve disease. In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, elevated Lp(a) has been associated with worse long-term outcomes, including recurrent ischemic events, repeat revascularization, and in-stent restenosis, even in the setting of controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. In parallel, experimental, genetic, and clinical data support a role for Lp(a) in the initiation and progression of calcific aortic stenosis, while its prognostic significance after transcatheter aortic valve interventions remains less clearly defined. Current guidelines now recognize Lp(a) as a relevant risk-enhancing factor, and emerging targeted therapies are achieving substantial reductions in circulating levels. Overall, Lp(a) should be regarded as both a meaningful biomarker and a promising therapeutic target, although ongoing outcome trials are needed to determine whether selective Lp(a) lowering translates into clinical benefit across interventional cardiovascular settings. The aim of this narrative review is to provide a single, comprehensive account of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in interventional cardiology, following this lipoprotein from its biology and pathophysiology through to its clinical impact and to the therapies that are now reaching the clinic, with a specific focus on the two most frequent catheter-based procedures in which it may carry prognostic weight: percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). PCI and TAVI are deliberately addressed within the same review since they share a common upstream biology: Lp(a) contributes both to the atherosclerotic process that underlies coronary disease and to the calcific process that underlies aortic valve disease, and the corresponding patient populations overlap considerably in everyday interventional practice. Covering them together offers the interventional cardiologist a single, practical reference on how a patient with elevated Lp(a) may be approached in both scenarios.
F. M. Animati, Simone Proietti, Francesco Auletta et al.· Journal of Clinical Medicine· 0 citations
BACKGROUND
Cancer and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist due to population ageing and improved survival for both conditions. HF is a well-recognised complication of oncologic therapies and a potential association between HF and subsequent cancer incidence has been recently noticed. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis to quantify cancer incidence and mortality in patients with and without HF.
METHODS
Databases were searched from inception to 15 February 2026. Data from observational studies and randomised trials on individuals with and without HF and reporting cancer incidence and/or mortality during follow-up were included. The main outcome of interest was the incidence of any cancer; secondary outcomes included site-specific cancer incidence (lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate) and all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer-related mortality.
RESULTS
Twelve studies comprising 8,979,195 individuals were included. HF was associated with a higher incidence of cancer (hazard ratio [HR] 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.54), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 99.7%). Cancer site-specific analyses showed increased incidences of lung (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.26-2.29), colorectal (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.11-1.48), and breast (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.37), but not prostate, cancer. Effect estimates varied according to analytical strategy: matched HF and non-HF cohorts reported higher risk estimates than those using covariate adjustment without matching. Mortality data were sparse and heterogeneous.
CONCLUSIONS
HF is associated with a higher incidence of cancer, although with marked heterogeneity among studies and cancer types. Mortality and cause of death were rarely reported. The observed HF-cancer association is influenced by statistical methodology, shared risk factors, differences in surveillance intensity and cancer type, that confound analyses investigating possible causal biological links. More granular and harmonised studies are required.
L. Sanasi, A. Iaconelli, Danila Azzolina et al.· European Journal of Heart Fa...· 0 citations