Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Mar 27.
Published in final edited form as: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Mar 1;79(8):757–768. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.11.058

Table 3:

Independent association of elevated Lp(a) and CAC score categories with incident ASCVD among MESA and DHS participants

MESA* DHS
HR (95% CI) p-value HR (95% CI) p-value
Lp(a) Quintile 5 1.29 (1.04 – 1.61) 0.02 1.54 (0.96 – 2.46) 0.07
Lp(a) Quintile 1-4 Referent Referent
CAC ≥ 100 2.66 (2.07 – 3.43) < 0.01 5.21 (2.48 – 10.96) < 0.01
CAC 1-99 1.68 (1.30 – 2.16) < 0.01 3.32 (1.74 – 6.33) < 0.01
CAC = 0 Referent Referent

Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for age, sex, race, diabetes, smoking, systolic blood pressure, antihypertensive use, total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, body mass index, lipoprotein(a), and CAC score.

*

CAC ≥100 x Elevated Lp(a) and CAC 1-99 x Elevated Lp(a) p-interaction for ASCVD in MESA = 0.20 and 0.59, respectively.

CAC ≥100 x Elevated Lp(a) and CAC 1-99 x Elevated Lp(a) p-interaction for ASCVD in DHS = 0.25 and 0.93, respectively.

Abbreviations: Lp(a) = lipoprotein(a), HR = hazard ratio, CI = confidence interval, rest of the abbreviations as in Table 1.