The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
I have a patient who has a bicuspid aortic valve which is going to be eat by itself that's predisposed to a or text enosis and he also has a very elevated LP little-a about 250 or 300 so even though he's only in his 30s he gets a cardiac MRI annually and he's already showing a pressure gradient so you know I've explained to him that he is going to need an intervention at some point in his life
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
for all of our patients that have elevated lp little a one of the first tests we do is get a baseline uh look at their aortic valve so typically we'll do it with an echocardiogram if we can get a good enough view if not we'll use a cardiac mri but it's for exactly this reason what's the approximate hazard ratio how much does risk go up for aortic stenosis in an individual with elevated lp little a
if you're looking at patients that have high-ish lpa levels such as well let's say 50 milligrams per deciliter or 125 nanomolar their risk can be increased by 50 percent to maybe a hundred percent or or double