Growing evidence has shown that high levels of lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) and chronic inflammation may be responsible for the residual risk of cardiovascular events in patients managed with an optimal evidence-based approach. Clinical studies have demonstrated a correlation between higher Lp(a) levels and several atherosclerotic diseases including ischemic heart disease, stroke, and degenerative calcific aortic stenosis. The threshold value of Lp(a) serum concentrations associated with a significantly increased cardiovascular risk is >125 nmol/L (50 mg/dL). Current available lipid-lowering drugs have modest-to-no impact on Lp(a) levels. Chronic inflammation is a further condition potentially implicated in residual cardiovascular risk. Consistent evidence has shown an increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients with high sensitivity C reactive protein (>2 mg/dL), an inflammation biomarker. A number of anti-inflammatory drugs have been investigated in patients with or at risk of cardiovascular disease. Of these, canakinumab and colchicine have been found to be associated with cardiovascular risk reduction. Ongoing research aimed at improving risk stratification on the basis of Lp(a) and vessel inflammation assessment may help refine patient management. Furthermore, the identification of these conditions as cardiovascular risk factors has led to increased investigation into diagnostic and therapeutic strategies targeting them in order to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease burden.

It is well established that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the cornerstone of anticoagulant strategy in atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) and should be preferred over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) since they are superior or non-inferior to VKAs in reducing thromboembolic risk and are associated with a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage (IH). In addition, many factors, such as fewer pharmacokinetic interactions and less need for monitoring, contribute to the favor of this therapeutic strategy. Although DOACs represent a more suitable option, several issues should be considered in clinical practice, including drug–drug interactions (DDIs), switching to other antithrombotic therapies, preprocedural and postprocedural periods, and the use in patients with chronic renal and liver failure and in those with cancer. Furthermore, adherence to DOACs appears to remain suboptimal. This narrative review aims to provide a practical guide for DOAC prescription and address challenging scenarios.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) have a lower prevalence in women than men; although, a higher mortality rate and a poorer prognosis are more common in women. However, there is a misperception of CVD female risk since women have commonly been considered more protected so that the real threat is vastly underestimated. Consequently, female patients are more likely to be treated less aggressively, and a lower rate of diagnostic and interventional procedures is performed in women than in men. In addition, there are substantial sex differences in CVD, so different strategies are needed. This review aims to evaluate the main gender-specific approaches in CVD.

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a complex circulating lipoprotein, and increasing evidence has demonstrated its role as a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and as a possible therapeutic target. Lp(a) atherogenic effects are attributed to several potential mechanisms in addition to cholesterol accumulation in the arterial wall, including proinflammatory effects mainly mediated by oxidised phospholipids. Several studies have found a causal and independent relationship between Lp(a) levels and cardiovascular risk. Furthermore, several studies also suggest a causal association between Lp(a) levels and calcific aortic valve stenosis. Available lipid-lowering agents have at best moderate impact on Lp(a) levels. Among available therapies, antibody proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors are the most effective in reducing Lp(a). Potent Lp(a)-lowering treatments that target LPA expression are under development. Lp(a) level measurement poses some challenges due to the absence of a definitive reference method and the reporting of Lp(a) values as molar (nanomoles per litre (nmol/L)) or mass concentrations (milligrams per decilitre (mg/dL)) by different assays. Currently, Lp(a) measurement is recommended to refine cardiovascular risk in specific clinical settings, that is, in individuals with a family history of premature ASCVD, in patients with ASCVD not explained by standard risk factors or in those with recurrent events despite optimal management of traditional risk factors. Patients with high Lp(a) levels should be managed with more intensive approaches to treat other modifiable cardiovascular risk factors. Overall, this review focuses on Lp(a) as an ASCVD risk factor and therapeutic target. Furthermore, it reports practical recommendations for Lp(a) measurement and interpretation and updated evidence on Lp(a)-lowering approaches.

Despite not being uncommon, limited evidence exists about predisposing factors for venous obstruction in patients with implantable electronic devices. We aimed to assess the prevalence of severe venous obstruction in patients with intravenous devices and identify predictor factors. A total of 184 patients underwent venography to detect venous obstruction associated with the inserted lead. Vessel obstruction was graded as venous occlusion (complete flow interruption), severe obstruction (narrowing >90%), or mild–moderate obstruction (narrowing 50–90%). Severe venous obstruction/occlusion prevalence was 11.4% (n = 21) and was always asymptomatic. Collateral circulation was found in 80.9% of patients with severe obstruction/occlusion. Twelve patients (6.5%) had 3 leads. The rates of patients with secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death as indication for implantable devices and of those of patients with 3 leads were significantly greater in the group with severe obstruction/occlusion than in the non-severe obstruction/occlusion group (respectively, P = 0.004 and P = 0.03). Logistic analysis adjusted for venous thromboembolic risk factors confirmed that secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death as indication for implantable devices [odds ratio (OR), 7.1; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4–35.3; P = 0.017] and the presence of 3 leads (OR, 8.5; 95% CI: 1.75–41.35; P = 0.008) were predictors of severe obstruction/occlusion. In patients with implantable devices, severe venous obstruction prevalence is not negligible and the lack of symptoms does not exclude it. The presence of three leads and sudden cardiac death as indication for implantable devices seem to be associated with the presence of severe venous obstruction/occlusion.