Introduction
Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a unique lipoprotein particle structurally similar to low-density lipoprotein (LDL), consisting of apolipoprotein B-100 covalently linked to apolipoprotein(a) via a disulfide bond.1 Its plasma concentration varies widely among individuals and is primarily determined by genetic factors through an autosomal co-dominant inheritance pattern.2 Lp(a) exhibits both atherogenic and thrombogenic properties due to its structural resemblance to plasminogen and LDL.3 It contributes to lipid deposition, impaired fibrinolysis, inflammation, and smooth muscle cell proliferation,3 thus playing a significant role in the development of atherosclerosis and thrombosis. Elevated Lp(a) levels have been associated with increased cardiovascular risk and recurrent ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).4–6
Drug-eluting stents (DES), particularly newer-generation devices with thinner struts and more biocompatible polymers, have substantially reduced in-stent restenosis (ISR) and thrombosis rates compared to first-generation stents.7 However, stent edge restenosis (SER)—restenosis occurring at the proximal or distal margins of the stent—remains a relevant limitation.8 SER is often attributed to mechanical and procedural factors, including vascular injury during balloon dilation, residual plaque at the stent edge, mismatches between stent and vessel size, and mechanical stresses at the stent-artery interface.9–11 Additional contributors include hinge motion, plaque burden, and lipid arc presence.11,12 Despite these known mechanical factors, the potential biological contributors to SER, particularly the role of elevated Lp(a), have not been well defined. Given Lp(a)’s proatherogenic and prothrombotic properties, it is biologically plausible that elevated Lp(a) may influence the development of SER. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), a high-resolution imaging modality, plays a central role in assessing lesion morphology and plaque characteristics and is therefore instrumental in evaluating the underlying mechanisms of SER. Accordingly, this study aimed to investigate the association between elevated Lp(a) levels and the incidence of SER in patients with CAD undergoing PCI, using IVUS to provide detailed lesion characterization. In particular, the study sought to assess whether elevated Lp(a) levels were associated with specific tissue features of restenosis, such as neoatherosclerosis and neointimal hyperplasia(NIH), to better understand potential biological mechanisms underlying SER.
Materials and Methods
Study Population
This single-center, retrospective observational research initially encompassed 211 consecutive CAD patients receiving IVUS-guided treatment for SER lesions from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2021. Exclusion criteria encompassed bare metal stent (BMS)-related SER (n=12), absence of serum Lp (a) measurement (n=25), suboptimal IVUS image quality (n=6), serious pulmonary, hepatic, or renal insufficiency (n=8), malignant tumor or autoimmune disease (n=2)(Figure 1). The final cohort was stratified into two cohorts based on serum Lp(a) levels: elevated Lp (a) group (≥50 mg/dL, n=75) and non-elevated Lp (a) group (<50 mg/dL, n=136).13 The study protocol adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki (2013 revision) and received approval from the Research and Ethics Committee of Xiangtan Central Hospital. Written informed consent from all participants or their legal representatives was obtained after they had been fully informed about the objectives of the study (X201863231-3).
|
Figure 1 Study flow. Abbreviations: SER, stent edge restenosis; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; IVUS, intravascular ultrasound; BMS, bare metal stent; Lp(a), lipoprotein(a).
|
Clinical Baseline, Procedures and Angiographic Characteristic Data
A dedicated database captured comprehensive information on patient demographics, comorbidities, and laboratory findings. The choice of interventional strategies, encompassing drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty, second-generation DES implantation, auxiliary device usage, and pharmacotherapy, was determined by operators based on current guidelines and local best practices.14,15 Medication regimens at discharge were documented on dual antiplatelet therapy with 100 mg aspirin daily and a P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel 75 mg daily or ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily), selected according to guideline recommendations and individual bleeding risk assessments. Additional secondary prevention medications, including statins, nitrates, β-blockers, as well as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, were prescribed in alignment with prevailing guidelines.
Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was conducted using QAngio XA software (Medis Medical Imaging Systems, Leiden, the Netherlands). Coronary lesion morphology evaluation followed previously established methodologies.16 Two experienced angiographers, working independently and blinded to the study details, performed all quantitative measurements using off-line computerized analysis. Lesion images were acquired in at least two orthogonal projections following the administration of 0.5 mg intracoronary nitroglycerin.The major angiographic parameters assessed included minimum lumen diameter (MLD), lesion length, diameter of reference vessel, and percentage diameter stenosis. To minimize procedural variability, all interventions were performed by experienced interventional cardiologists following current PCI guidelines. Decisions on lesion preparation, stent sizing, and landing zone selection were made under IVUS guidance and QCA support. Although lesion preparation techniques (eg, pre-dilation or scoring balloon use) were not uniformly documented, stent deployment adhered to best practices and IVUS-optimized expansion targets.
Lp(a) Measurement
Serum Lp(a) levels were quantified using an immune-turbidimetry assay, with ≥50 mg/dL established as a risk-enhancing threshold in accordance with recent guidelines.13 For patients with multiple preprocedural Lp(a) measurements, the value closest to the procedure date was selected for analysis.
IVUS Image Acquisition and Assessment
IVUS imaging of SER arteries was performed using a 40-MHz OptiCross™ catheter (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA). Following intracoronary nitroglycerin administration (0.1–0.2 mg), automated pullback (0.5 mm/s) was initiated. The IVUS catheter was advanced >10 mm beyond the stent distally and proximally. IVUS image analysis utilized QIvus® software (Medis, Leiden, the Netherlands). SER was defined as >50% diameter stenosis within 5mm proximal or distal to the stent edge.17 Reference segments, representing the most normal-appearing cross-sections in 5 mm of the SER, were identified for comparative analysis (Figure 2). The minimum lumen area (MLA) and minimum stent area (MSA) sites were determined based on smallest lumen/greatest plaque and smallest stent area, respectively. Two independent, blinded cardiologists performed SER identification and quantitative analyses, with high intra-observer as well as inter-observer agreement (κ = 0.92 and 0.90, respectively). NIH area (stent area minus lumen area) and percentage (NIH/stent area) were calculated from stent and lumen areas. Stent expansion was defined as MSA divided via the largest reference lumen,18 with under-expansion classified as MSA <4 mm2 or expansion <50%.19 To further address potential procedural bias, IVUS analysis included parameters related to stent expansion and plaque morphology. The classification of neoatherosclerosis and other SER subtypes was based on consensus definitions and validated by two independent observers. While procedural nuances such as exact lesion preparation were not systematically recorded, the combination of anatomical imaging, blinded review, and high inter-observer agreement (κ = 0.90–0.92) supports the reliability of lesion classification.
 |
Figure 2 In the example, the coronary angiogram at the time of SER (A) is shown accompanied by a white dotted line indicating the old stents. (B–E) in the coronary angiograms correspond to the IVUS image (B–E). (B′–E′) are the same images with annotation compared with (B–E). IVUS images shown excessive neointimal hyperplasia with good stent expansion; blue dotted lines in the IVUS images indicate old stent struts; the blue asterisks indicate excessive neointimal hyperplasia. Abbreviations: SER, stent edge restenosis; IVUS, intravascular ultrasound.
|
Definitions
SER was categorized into five primary patterns: 1) NIH, 2) Neo-atherosclerosis, 3) uncovered lesion, 4) stent under-expansion, and 5) protruding calcified nodule (CN). Neo-atherosclerosis was characterized by atherosclerotic changes at the MLA site within the stent, manifesting as calcified NIH (echogenic tissue with acoustic shadowing), attenuated NIH (ultrasound shadowing without superficial calcium), or ruptured NIH (cavitation within NIH).20 A neo-atherosclerotic calcified nodule was distinguished from a non-neoatherosclerotic protruding calcified nodule, which presented as an irregular, convex calcium deposit within the old stent, lacking adjacent NIH.21 In cases of multiple potential causes, the primary factor contributing to in-stent restenosis was determined based on its predominant impact on stenosis severity.
Clinical Follow-up and Outcomes
The study’s primary endpoint focused on device-oriented clinical endpoints (DoCE), encompassing cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) related to the target vessel or stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). These clinical outcomes were defined in compliance with the Academic Research Consortium guidelines.22 The investigation prioritized the incidence of DoCE as its main objective, while the secondary goal examined the occurrence of individual DoCE components. Patient monitoring involved periodic assessments at six-month intervals, conducted either through in-person clinical visits or telephone consultations. The follow-up period extended up to two years, with all study participants completing a minimum of one year of observation.
Statistical Analysis
Continuous variables were presented as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range), and categorical variables in terms of frequencies and percentages for data presentation. Analysis of continuous outcome data was done by comparing data employing the Student’s t-test or Mann–Whitney U-test, based on the data distribution. Fisher’s exact test was used to evaluate categorical outcome data when the total number of observations was 9 or fewer; chi-square analysis was used if the total number of observations was greater than 9. Cox regression analysis, both univariate and multi-variable, were conducted to ascertain independent determinants of SER, providing odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Those variables demonstrating P less than 0.10 in univariate analysis were then joined into a multi-variable marginal Cox proportional hazards model. Kaplan-Meier survival assessment was utilized to estimate event rates, and hazard ratios (HR) was calculated from Cox regression analysis. For patients for whom multiple DoCEs were applicable, the first was employed for analytical purposes. All analyses were carried out at a statistical significance of P < 0.05. The statistical program SPSS 24.0 was used to handle and evaluate the data (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, US).
Results
Baseline Clinical Characteristics and Angiography Characteristics
The research encompassed 211 patients (136 males, 75 females; mean age 64.28±10.78 years) presenting with SER and 211 corresponding target lesions. Upon analysis, no noteworthy disparities in baseline clinical or angiographic features were detected between subjects with elevated and non-elevated Lp(a) levels (Tables 1 and 2).
 |
Table 1 Baseline Clinical Characteristics
|
 |
Table 2 Angiography Characteristics
|
IVUS Analysis of SER Lesions
The IVUS findings of SER were not different between the elevated Lp(a) cohort and the non-elevated Lp (a) cohort (Table 3). Between the two cohorts, there was a noticeable difference in the distribution pattern of SER stenotic tissue shape. The elevated Lp(a) cohort exhibited fewer instances of NIH compared to the non-elevated Lp(a) cohort (24.0% vs 33.8%, P<0.001)(Figure 3). Conversely, Neo-atherosclerosis was more prevalent in the elevated Lp(a) cohort than in the non-elevated Lp (a) cohort (56.0% vs 44.1%, P<0.001) (Figure 3).
 |
Table 3 Intravascular Ultrasound Findings
|
 |
Figure 3 The primary patterns of SER. Abbreviations: CN,calcified nodule; Lp(a), lipoprotein(a); SER, stent edge restenosis.
|
Prediction of SER
As depicted within Table 4, both univariate (OR: 3.612, 95% CI: 2.226–5.477; P<0.001) and multivariate (OR: 3.391, 95% CI: 2.030–5.273; P<0.001) assessments show that elevated Lp(a) was independently correlated with the development of SER.
 |
Table 4 Univariate and Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis to Determine the Independent Factors Affecting the Presence of SER
|
Clinical Outcomes
Table 5 and Figure 4 illustrate the comparative clinical outcomes between participants with elevated and non-elevated Lp(a) levels. Over a 2-year observational follow-up period, the elevated Lp(a) cohort consistently demonstrated higher incidences of DoCE and TLR compared to the non-elevated Lp(a) cohort (16.0% vs 7.4%, P<0.001; 13.3% vs 5.1%, P= 0.011, respectively).
 |
Table 5 Clinical Outcomes During Follow-up
|
 |
Figure 4 Kaplan-Meier survival curves of DoCE for 2 years. Abbreviations: DoCE, device-oriented clinical endpoints; MI, myocardial infarction; TLR, target lesion revascularization; 95% CI, 95% confidence intervals; HR, hazard ratio; Lp(a), lipoprotein(a).
|
Discussion
This study’s principal observations can be summarized as follows: 1.Among patients with SER, Neo-atherosclerosis was much more prevalent within the elevated Lp(a) cohort. 2.NIH was less frequent in the elevated Lp(a) cohort. 3.Elevated Lp(a) levels exhibited an independent correlation with SER. 4.The cumulative 2-year incidence of both DoCE and TLR was consistently elevated within the elevated Lp(a) cohort.
Impact of Lp(a) on SER
This real-world investigation reveals a notable disparity in the distribution of SER stenotic tissue structure between the two cohorts. The elevated Lp(a) cohort exhibited fewer instances of NIH but a higher prevalence of neo-atherosclerosis compared to their counterparts with non-elevated Lp(a) levels. Lp(a) promotes atherosclerosis by transporting cholesterol while adhering to macrophages, facilitating foam cell formation, which contributes to atherosclerotic plaque development.23 In addition, Lp(a) competes for specific binding sites with plasminogen and enhances the activity of plasminogen activator inhibitor, both processes promoting thrombogenesis.24 The post-stent implantation inflammatory response is badly affected by Lp(a). Through its actions on white blood cells and the immune cascades at sites of injured vessel walls, it stimulates proinflammatory cytokine and matrix metalloproteinase secretion. It triggers a localized inflammatory response and then promotes vascular smooth muscle proliferation and migration towards atherosclerotic lesions.25 A second potential proatherogenic mechanism of Lp(a) is its inverse association with vascular reactivity. Lp(a) directly binds to the extracellular matrix, is internalized via macrophages, and is associated with lipid accumulation and Neo-atherosclerosis and in-stent restenosis.26 As a consequence, increased plasma Lp(a) levels result in endothelial dysfunction,27 a major impetus for SER development.28
Predictors of SER
The development, severity, as well as pattern of SER are due to multiple factors, such as mechanical (stent under-expansion, uneven drug distribution, and stent fracture), biological (drug resistance and hypersensitivity), or operator-related technical factors (barotraumas beyond the stented section, stent gaps, and remaining uncovered atherosclerotic plaques).29 Our study corroborates that elevated Lp(a) levels independently correlate with an elevated SER risk, supporting Lp(a)’s potential impact on restenotic lesions. However, previous IVUS and optical coherence tomography (OCT) studies have highlighted several key risk factors for SER: mechanical injury, hinge motion, stent under-expansion, smaller lumen size, residual plaque at the stent edge PCI, and a larger step-up index (ie, the ratio of stent border to reference minimum lumen area).11,30,31 A retrospective OCT study of 319 patients immediately after everolimus-eluting stent implantation revealed lipidic plaque (OR: 5.99; 95% CI: 2.89–12.81; P<0.001) and minimum lumen area (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42–0.96; P=0.029) as independent predictors of SER.11 For post-PCI patients, intensive management directed toward conventional risk factors (elevated LDL level, lesion morphology, hypertension, and diabetes) is usually performed.32 Our cohort’s lack of correlation between these conventional risk variables and SER could be due to the fact that their potential influence may not be a major driver of SER and that the control of these risk factors through intense treatment interventions following baseline PCI has been effective. In contrast, secondary prevention with Lp(a)-targeted therapies is approved but only in development and not yet standardized, giving us the advantage to study the persistent effect of elevated Lp(a) levels on stent durability.
Clinical Outcome
Our study revealed consistently higher cumulative 2-year incidences of DoCE and TLR in the elevated Lp(a) cohort in contrast to the non-elevated Lp(a) cohort. The association seen in SER patients with elevated Lp(a) and adverse clinical outcomes following repeat PCI indicated these findings as a potential causal effect even in the DES era. Landmark assessment showed that the differences in SER in patients with elevated and non-elevated Lp(a) were greatest following the index post-baseline PCI and therefore consistent with Lp(a)’s 2-year clinical effects on SER. In fact, a previous OCT study has shown that 185° of lipid arc and a minimal lumen area of 4.10 mm² at the stent edge predict SER and future adverse clinical events.11
Limited data exist on the association involving Lp(a) levels and stent thrombosis risk following PCI with DES. Due to structural homology between apolipoprotein(a) and plasminogen, Lp(a) may compete with and inhibit tissue plasminogen’s thrombolytic activity.33 Park et al reported an association involving higher Lp(a) levels as well as stent thrombosis following PCI with DES,34 suggesting a more thrombogenic state within patients having high Lp(a) levels. However, our study found no statistically significant difference in cumulative 2-year stent thrombosis incidence involving the two cohorts, possibly due to insufficient sample size. Larger sample size studies are needed to draw definitive conclusions about Lp(a)’s role in stent thrombosis development.
Despite high and similar statin use in both cohorts (85.3% in elevated Lp(a) cohort versus 89.7% in non-elevated Lp(a) group, P=0.601), significant differences in 2-year DoCE outcomes were observed, suggesting that Lp(a) is not modified by statin therapy.35 Following treatment with a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor (PCSK9i), which decreased Lp(a) levels from 71.5 to 47.4 mg/dL, a patient with elevated Lp(a) levels showed no ISR recurrence, according to a case report by Akiyama et al. It is noteworthy that before to starting PCSK9i, this patient had a history of recurrent ISR (6 times) while receiving appropriate traditional antihyperlipidemia medication. Further studies are warranted to investigate potential therapies for preventing SER within patients having high Lp(a) levels undergoing PCI with DES.
Lp(a) is discussed as a promising risk factor and therapeutic target for SER prevention, and research in this area is encouraged. In patients undergoing PCI, elevated Lp(a) levels should be managed meticulously with a corresponding decrease in Lp(a) level. Of particular relevance in this era of emerging Lp(a)-targeted therapies,36 this approach is important.The clinical importance of Lp(a) in the prevention of SER is amplified because SER is routinely treated by revascularization, which may be complex PCI or surgical intervention and could affect patient prognosis.29 In addition, though, beyond treatment trials, more prospective studies are necessary to better explore the role of Lp(a) in SER.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, the single-center, non-randomized, retrospective design and limited sample size may introduce selection and information bias. Additionally, some patients were excluded due to missing IVUS assessments or Lp(a) measurements, which may have affected representativeness. Second, the types of DES previously implanted at SER sites included both first- and second-generation devices, potentially influencing plaque morphology and confounding the analysis. Third, although patients received guideline-directed medical therapy, detailed information on prior pharmacological interventions—particularly statin and P2Y12 inhibitor use—was not fully available, which may have contributed to observed differences in restenotic tissue characteristics between cohorts. Fourth, while clinical follow-up was performed for up to two years, extended long-term data beyond this period, including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or late revascularization rates, were not collected. This may have limited the ability to fully assess the long-term prognostic implications of elevated Lp(a). In addition, dynamic changes in Lp(a) levels and longitudinal data on stent type during follow-up were not available, which may have further influenced outcomes. Fifth, while IVUS provided detailed structural information, it has intrinsic limitations in accurately characterizing tissue composition, as its imaging features may not fully correspond with histopathological findings. Future studies incorporating multimodal imaging—such as OCT, NIRS, or hybrid imaging platforms—are warranted to improve tissue characterization and validation.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that elevated Lp(a) is independently associated with the occurrence of neoatherosclerosis and adverse two-year outcomes in patients with SER after PCI. These findings reinforce the biological plausibility of Lp(a) as a risk factor, given its pro-inflammatory and pro-thrombotic properties that may promote plaque progression and vascular remodeling. The results highlight the potential of Lp(a) not only as a predictor of SER but also as a future therapeutic target or risk stratification tool in post-PCI patient management. While the findings are supported by robust imaging and clinical analysis, the single-center, retrospective design and limited follow-up duration represent inherent limitations. Future prospective, multicenter studies with extended follow-up are warranted to validate these observations and assess the impact of Lp(a)-targeted interventions.
Data Sharing Statement
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
The present research was carried out in accordance with the tenets mentioned in the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the Ethical Board of Xiangtan Central Hospital (approval number:X201863231-3). Prior to the commencement of the research, our team obtained written informed consent from each patient.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable. No individual patient data will be reported.
Author Contributions
All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas. Specifically, X.W. and L.W. conceived the study and critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content. H.B.H. and H.H. performed the literature search and data analysis. X.W., M.X.W., L.W., Z.L., and H.H. contributed to drafting and revising the manuscript. All authors gave final approval of the version to be published, agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Funding
This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (No.2022JJ30575) and Health Research Project of Hunan Provincial Health Commission (No. 20233486).
Disclosure
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
1. Hoover-Plow J, Huang M. Lipoprotein(a) metabolism: potential sites for therapeutic targets. Metabolism. 2013;62(4):479–491. doi:10.1016/j.metabol.2012.07.024
2. Akita H, Matsubara M, Shibuya H, Fuda H, Chiba H. Effect of ageing on plasma lipoprotein(a) levels. Ann Clin Biochem. 2002;39(Pt 3):237–240. doi:10.1258/0004563021901937
3. Grainger DJ, Kirschenlohr HL, Metcalfe JC, Weissberg PL, Wade DP, Lawn RM. Proliferation of human smooth muscle cells promoted by lipoprotein(a). Science. 1993;260(5114):1655–1658. doi:10.1126/science.8503012
4. Bennet A, Di Angelantonio E, Erqou S, et al. Lipoprotein(a) levels and risk of future coronary heart disease large-scale prospective data. Arch Int Med. 2008;168(6):598–608. doi:10.1001/archinte.168.6.598
5. Saleheen D, Haycock PC, Zhao W, et al. Apolipoprotein(a) isoform size, lipoprotein(a) concentration, and coronary artery disease: a Mendelian randomisation analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(7):524–533. doi:10.1016/s2213-8587(17)30088-8
6. Yoon YH, Ahn JM, Kang DY, et al. Association of lipoprotein(a) with recurrent ischemic events following percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14(18):2059–2068. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2021.07.042
7. Kitahara H, Kobayashi Y, Takebayashi H, et al. Angiographic patterns of restenosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. Circ J. 2009;73(3):508–511. doi:10.1253/circj.cj-08-0720
8. Dangas GD, Claessen BE, Caixeta A, Sanidas EA, Mintz GS, Mehran R. In-stent restenosis in the drug-eluting stent era. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(23):1897–1907. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.07.028
9. Kim YG, Oh IY, Kwon YW, et al. Mechanism of edge restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation. Angulation at the edge and mechanical properties of the stent. Circ J. 2013;77(12):2928–2935. doi:10.1253/circj.cj-12-1259
10. Kitahara H, Okada K, Kimura T, et al. Impact of stent size selection on acute and long-term outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation in de novo coronary lesions. Circulation. 2017;10(10). doi:10.1161/circinterventions.116.004795
11. Ino Y, Kubo T, Matsuo Y, et al. Optical coherence tomography predictors for edge restenosis after everolimus-eluting stent implantation. Circulation. 2016;9(10). doi:10.1161/circinterventions.116.004231
12. Jimba T, Ikutomi M, Tsukamoto A, Matsushita M, Yamasaki M. Effect of hinge motion on stent edge-related restenosis after right coronary artery treatment in the current drug-eluting stent era. Circ J. 2021;85(11):1959–1968. doi:10.1253/circj.CJ-21-0196
13. Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, et al. AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;73(24):3168–3209. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.002
14. Jeger RV, Eccleshall S, Wan Ahmad WA, et al. Drug-coated balloons for coronary artery disease: third report of the international DCB consensus group. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(12):1391–1402. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2020.02.043
15. Ryan TJ, Faxon DP, Gunnar RM, et al. Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty). Circulation. 1988;78(2):486–502. doi:10.1161/01.cir.78.2.486
16. Ellis SG, Vandormael MG, Cowley MJ, et al. Coronary morphologic and clinical determinants of procedural outcome with angioplasty for multivessel coronary disease. implications for patient selection. multivessel angioplasty prognosis study group. Circulation. 1990;82(4):1193–1202. doi:10.1161/01.cir.82.4.1193
17. Mehran R, Dangas G, Abizaid AS, et al. Angiographic patterns of in-stent restenosis: classification and implications for long-term outcome. Circulation. 1999;100(18):1872–1878. doi:10.1161/01.cir.100.18.1872
18. Nasu K, Oikawa Y, Habara M, et al. Efficacy of biolimus A9-eluting stent for treatment of right coronary ostial lesion with intravascular ultrasound guidance: a multi-center registry. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2018;33(4):321–327. doi:10.1007/s12928-017-0487-4
19. Song L, Mintz GS, Yin D, et al. Characteristics of early versus late in-stent restenosis in second-generation drug-eluting stents: an optical coherence tomography study. EuroIntervention. 2017;13(3):294–302. doi:10.4244/eij-d-16-00787
20. Lee CW, Kang SJ, Park DW, et al. Intravascular ultrasound findings in patients with very late stent thrombosis after either drug-eluting or bare-metal stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(18):1936–1942. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.10.077
21. Nakamura N, Torii S, Tsuchiya H, et al. Formation of calcified nodule as a cause of early in-stent restenosis in patients undergoing dialysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9(19):e016595. doi:10.1161/jaha.120.016595
22. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation. 2007;115(17):2344–2351. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.106.685313
23. Tsimikas S, Brilakis ES, Miller ER, et al. Oxidized phospholipids, Lp(a) lipoprotein, and coronary artery disease. New Engl J Med. 2005;353(1):46–57. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa043175
24. Nordestgaard BG, Chapman MJ, Ray K, et al. Lipoprotein(a) as a cardiovascular risk factor: current status. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(23):2844–2853. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehq386
25. Deloukas P, Kanoni S, Willenborg C, et al. Large-scale association analysis identifies new risk loci for coronary artery disease. Nature Genet. 2013;45(1):25–33. doi:10.1038/ng.2480
26. Fang Y, Lin M, Chen L, Yang C, Liu A. Association between LDL/HDL ratio and in-stent restenosis in patients with acute coronary syndrome after stent implantation. Biomarkers Med. 2022;16(9):673–680. doi:10.2217/bmm-2021-1089
27. Wu HD, Berglund L, Dimayuga C, et al. High lipoprotein(a) levels and small apolipoprotein(a) sizes are associated with endothelial dysfunction in a multiethnic cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43(10):1828–1833. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2003.08.066
28. Patti G, Pasceri V, Melfi R, et al. Impaired flow-mediated dilation and risk of restenosis in patients undergoing coronary stent implantation. Circulation. 2005;111(1):70–75. doi:10.1161/01.Cir.0000151308.06673.D2
29. Otake H. Stent edge restenosis- an inevitable drawback of stenting? Circulation J. 2021;85(11):1969–1971. doi:10.1253/circj.CJ-21-0581
30. Wang Y, Lou X, Xu X, Zhu J, Shang Y. Drug-eluting balloons versus drug-eluting stents for the management of in-stent restenosis: a meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies. J Cardiol. 2017;70(5):446–453. doi:10.1016/j.jjcc.2016.12.019
31. Kang SJ, Cho YR, Park GM, et al. Intravascular ultrasound predictors for edge restenosis after newer generation drug-eluting stent implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(10):1408–1414. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.01.288
32. Shafiabadi Hassani N, Ogliari LC, de Oliveira Salerno PR V, Pereira GTR, Ribeiro MH, Palma Dallan LA. In-Stent restenosis overview: from intravascular imaging to optimal percutaneous coronary intervention management. Medicina. 2024;60(4). doi:10.3390/medicina60040549
33. Feric NT, Boffa MB, Johnston SM, Koschinsky ML. Apolipoprotein(a) inhibits the conversion of Glu-plasminogen to Lys-plasminogen: a novel mechanism for lipoprotein(a)-mediated inhibition of plasminogen activation. J Thromb Haemost. 2008;6(12):2113–2120. doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2008.03183.x
34. Park SH, Rha SW, Choi BG, et al. Impact of high lipoprotein(a) levels on in-stent restenosis and long-term clinical outcomes of angina pectoris patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents in Asian population. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2015;42(6):588–595. doi:10.1111/1440-1681.12396
35. Nicholls SJ, Tang WH, Scoffone H, et al. Lipoprotein(a) levels and long-term cardiovascular risk in the contemporary era of statin therapy. J Lipid Res. 2010;51(10):3055–3061. doi:10.1194/jlr.M008961
36. Farina JM, Pereyra M, Mahmoud AK, et al. Current management and future perspectives in the treatment of lp(a) with a focus on the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Pharmaceuticals. 2023;16(7). doi:10.3390/ph16070919