Lipoprotein(a) concentration is not associated with venous thromboembolism in a case control study

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Lipoprotein(a) is an LDL-like particle displaying strong athero-thrombotic properties. Although Lp(a) plays a pivotal role in the genesis and progression of thrombosis in the arterial district, its role in promoting thrombosis in the venous district is still unclear. DESIGN AND METHODS: To give further insight into the thrombotic potential of Lp(a), 100 potentially eligible consecutive outpatients who had suffered from previous episodes of venous thrombosis (deep vein thrombosis with or without pulmonary embolism) were enrolled into the study. Thirty-six of these patients who did not fulfil the entry criteria were then excluded from the study. The concentration of Lp(a) was thus measured in 64 patients, and compared to that of 64 control subjects, matched for sex (p=0.46), age (p=0.25) and pharmacological treatment; no subject belonging to the control group had a familial or personal history of venous thromboembolism. Exclusion criteria for both groups included: diabetes mellitus, liver or kidney diseases and malignancy, as established by both laboratory analysis and physical examination. To rule out false elevations of Lp(a) due to the presence of a concurrent acute phase response, C reactive protein (CRP) was measured in both groups using a commercial immunonephelometric assay. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed in the median Lp(a) concentration between patients and controls (median: 69 vs 83 mg/L, respectively; p=0.34). Neither were any significant differences found between patients who had suffered from deep venous thrombosis with (n=18) or without (n=46) pulmonary embolism (median: 73 vs 69 mg/L, respectively; p=0. 83). The concentration of CRP did not differ significantly between cases and controls (median: 1.8 vs 2.3 g/L, respectively; p=0.37). INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: Although there are several plausible biological mechanisms to explain the strong thrombogenicity of Lp(a) in vitro, we failed to demonstrate a convincing association between Lp(a) and thrombosis in the venous district. Besides the proven prothrombotic role of Lp(a) in some selected clinical settings, it is thus conceivable that the contribution of Lp(a) to genesis and progression of the venous thrombosis might be marginal or efficiently counterbalanced in vivo. The clinical usefulness of including the measurement of Lp(a) among the screening tests for thrombophilic patients, therefore, remains questionable.