Acute myocardial infarction treatments and outcomes in 6.5 million patients with a current or historical diagnosis of cancer in the USA

Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty in Patients with Cancer: Clinical Challenges and Management Strategies

The number of cancer survivors in the United States is projected to increase by 31% by 2030. With advances in early screening, diagnosis and therapeutic strategies, a steadily increasing number of patients are surviving cancer. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is now one of the leading causes of death amongst cancer survivors, with the latter group of patients having a higher risk of CAD compared to the general population. Our review covers a range of specific challenges faced by doctors when considering percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in cancer patients; clinical outcomes in cancer patients undergoing PCI, as well as some important technical considerations to be made when making decisions regarding the management strategy in this special population of patients.

Cardiogenic shock among cancer patients

Sophisticated cancer treatments, cardiovascular risk factors, and aging trigger acute cardiovascular diseases in an increasing number of cancer patients. Among acute cardiovascular diseases, cancer treatment, as well as the cancer disease itself, may induce a cardiogenic shock. Although increasing, these cardiogenic shocks are still relatively limited, and their management is a matter of debate in cancer patients. Etiologies that cause cardiogenic shock are slightly different from those of non-cancer patients, and management has some specific features always requiring a multidisciplinary approach. Recent guidelines and extensive data from the scientific literature can provide useful guidance for the management of these critical patients. Even if no etiologic therapy is available, maximal intensive supportive measures can often be justified, as most of these cardiogenic shocks are potentially reversible. In this review, we address the major etiologies that can lead to cardiogenic shock in cancer patients and discuss issues related to its management.

Chest Pain in the Cancer Patient

Chest pain is one of the most common presenting symptoms in patients seeking care from a physician. Risk assessment tools and scores have facilitated prompt diagnosis and optimal management in these patients; however, it is unclear as to whether a standardised approach can adequately triage chest pain in cancer patients and survivors. This is of concern because cancer patients are often at an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity given the shared risk factors between cancer and cardiovascular disease, compounded by the fact that certain anti-cancer therapies are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events that can persist for weeks and even years after treatment. This article describes the underlying mechanisms of the most common causes of chest pain in cancer patients with an emphasis on how their management may differ to that of non-cancer patients with chest pain. It will also highlight the role of the cardio-oncology team, who can aid in identifying cancer therapy-related cardiovascular side-effects and provide optimal multidisciplinary care for these patients.

Acute coronary syndrome in patients with cancer

INTRODUCTION

Improvement in cancer survival has led to an increased focus on cardiovascular disease as the other major determinant of survivorship. As a result, there has been an increasing interest in managing cardiovascular disease during and post cancer treatment.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the current literature on the pathogenesis, risk factors, presentation, treatment and clinical outcomes of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with cancer.

EXPERT OPINION

There is growing evidence that both medical therapy and invasive management of ACS improve outcomes in patients with cancer. Appropriate patient selection, risk stratification and tailored therapy represents the cornerstone of management in these patients.

Management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction in patients with pre-existing heart failure: an analysis of 2 million patients from the national inpatient sample

BACKGROUND

Inpatient management and outcomes of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with a history of heart failure (HF) have not been well characterized.

METHODS

: Hospitalizations for AMI from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2015-2018) were categorized according to a pre-existing diagnosis of HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), or absence of HF. Utilization of invasive management and in-hospital outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

: Among 2,434,639 hospitalizations with an AMI, 19.8% had a history of HFrEF and 11.9% had a history of HFpEF. Coronary angiography and PCI respectively were performed significantly less among patients with HF (36.6% and 17.4% in HFpEF, 51.1% and 24.6% in HFrEF, and 64.4% and 42.3% among patients without HF, all p<0.0001). Mortality was more common among patients with HFrEF (10.3%) and HFpEF (8.3%) when compared to patients without a history of HF (6.4%), p<0.0001. In multivariable analyses compared to patients without HF, mortality was higher among patients with HFrEF (aOR 1.27, CI 1.26-1.29, p<0.0001) but not different among patients with HFpEF.

CONCLUSION

HF is a common pre-existing comorbidity among patients presenting with AMI and is associated with lower utilization of invasive procedures and higher complications including mortality, particularly among those with HFrEF.

Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Cancer Patients: It's High Time We Dealt with It

Cancer patients have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and, notably, a significant prevalence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). It has been shown that an elevated presence of cardiovascular risk factors in this setting leads to an interaction between these two conditions, influencing their therapeutic strategies and contributing to higher mortality. Nonetheless, cancer patients have generally not been evaluated in ACS trials, so that the treatment in these cases is still not fully known. We reviewed the current literature and discussed the best management for these very high-risk patients. The treatment strategy must be tailored based on the cancer type and stage, balancing thrombotic and bleeding risks. When the prognosis is longer than six months, especially if a clinical instability coexists, patients with ACS and cancer should be referred for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as soon as possible. Moreover, an invasive strategy should be preferred in STEMI patients as well as in NSTEMI patients who are considered as high risk. On the contrary, in clinically stable NSTEMI patients, a conservative non-invasive strategy could be adopted, especially in cases of a poor life expectancy and/or of high risk of bleeding. Drug-Eluting-Stents (DES) should be the first choice if an invasive strategy is adopted. Conservative therapy could instead be considered in cancer patients with more stable CAD at an increased risk of major bleeding complications. However, the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel is recommended, but it should be as short as possible, whereas triple antithrombotic therapy is non-advised because it significantly increases the risk of bleeding. ACS management among cancer patients should be based on an accurate evaluation of the risk of thrombosis and bleeding. Future studies focused on choosing optimal strategies in tumor patients with ACS should be performed to treat this subset of patients better.

Cardio-Oncology: A Myriad of Relationships Between Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer are the leading causes of death worldwide. With an increasing number of the elderly population, and early cancer screening and treatment, the number of cancers cases are rising, while the mortality rate is decreasing. However, the number of cancer survivors is increasing yearly. With the prolonged life span of cancer patients, the adverse effects of anti-tumor therapy, especially CVD, have gained enormous attention. The incidence of cardiovascular events such as cardiac injury or cardiovascular toxicity is higher than malignant tumors' recurrence rate. Numerous clinical studies have also shifted their focus from the study of a single disease to the interdisciplinary study of oncology and cardiology. Previous studies have confirmed that anti-tumor therapy can cause CVD. Additionally, the treatment of CVD is also related to the tumors incidence. It is well established that the increased incidence of CVD in cancer patients is probably due to an unmodified unhealthy lifestyle among cancer survivors or cardiotoxicity caused by anti-cancer therapy. Nevertheless, some patients with CVD have a relatively increased cancer risk because CVD and malignant tumors are highly overlapping risk factors, including gender, age, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, inflammation, and obesity. With advancements in the diagnosis and treatment, many patients simultaneously suffer from CVD and cancer, and most of them have a poor prognosis. Therefore, clinicians should understand the relationship between CVD and tumors, effectively identify the primary and secondary prevention for these diseases, and follow proper treatment methods.

In-Hospital Characteristics and 30-Day Readmissions for Acute Myocardial Infarction and Major Bleeding in Patients With Active Cancer

There are limited data on readmission with ischemic and major bleeding events in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with active cancer. The purpose of our study was to evaluate in-hospital characteristics and 30-day readmission rates for recurrent AMI and major bleeding by cancer type in patients with AMI and active cancer. From 2016 through 2018, patients in the Nationwide Readmission Database admitted with AMI and underlying active colon, lung, breast, prostate, and hematological cancers were included. Thirty-day readmission for recurrent AMI and major bleeding were reported. Of 1,524,677 index hospitalizations for AMI, 35,790 patients (2.2%) had cancer (0.9% hematological; 0.5% lung; 0.4% prostate; 0.2% breast; and 0.1% colon). Compared with patients without cancer, patients with cancer were about 6 to 10 years older and had a higher proportion of atrial fibrillation, valvular heart disease, previous stroke, and a greater co-morbidity burden. Of all cancer types, only active breast cancer (adjusted odds ratios 1.82, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.98) was found to be significantly associated with elevated odds of readmission for major bleeding; no such association was observed for recurrent AMI. In conclusion, AMI in patients with breast cancer is associated with significantly greater odds of readmission for major bleeding within 30 days after discharge. Management of patients with concomitant AMI and cancer is challenging but should be based on a multidisciplinary approach and estimation of an individual patient's risk of major coronary thrombotic and bleeding events.

Impact of stent types on in-hospital outcomes of patients with cancer undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease and cancer frequently coexist, and patients with cancer are at increased risk of cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction and stroke. However, the impact of stent types on in-hospital outcomes of patients with malignancy is largely unknown.

METHODS

Patients with concomitant diagnosis of cancer undergoing PCI between January 2005 and December 2014 were identified in the National Inpatient Sample. They were then categorized into those who have undergone coronary stenting with bare-metal stent (BMS) or drug-eluting stent (DES). Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and stent thrombosis. Adjusted and unadjusted analysis was employed on appropriate variables of interest.

RESULTS

8755 patients were included in the BMS group and 11,611 patients in the DES group. Following propensity matching, 4313 patients were randomly selected in both groups using a 1:1 ratio. There was high use of BMS stent in cancer patient (BMS 43.0%, DES 57.0%) compared to general population (BMS 23.2%, DES 76.8%). When comparing BMS to DES group, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality (4.7% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.097), acute kidney injury (11.3% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.425), bleeding complications (3.50% vs. 3.45%, p = 0.914), and length of hospital stay (5.4% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.119). However, an increased incidence of stent thrombosis was observed in the DES group (4.26% vs. 3.01%, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

A higher incidence of BMS placement was noted in patients with cancer than in the general population. Paradoxically there was a high incidence of stent thrombosis in the DES group without increasing mortality.

A Concomitant Cancer Diagnosis Is Associated With Poor Cardiovascular Outcomes Among Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients

Background and Aims

With the increasing coexistence of cardiovascular disease and cancer in contemporary clinical practice, studies on the outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with cancer has not been systematically investigated. This study sought to investigated the effect of coexisting cancer on the treatment and clinical outcomes among AMI patients.

Methods

We retrospectively integrated and analyzed cardiovascular data of 6,607 AMI patients between June 2016 and December 2019. Patients with cancer were compared with pair-matched cancer-naive patients. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to compare the differences in outcomes.

Results

Of 6,607 patients, 2.3% (n = 150) had been diagnosed with cancer. Patients with cancer were older (70.3 ± 10.0 vs. 63.9 ± 11.5 years, P < 0.001) and had a higher burden of comorbidities. Moreover, patients with cancer tended to receive clopidogrel (52.0 vs. 40.0%, P = 0.004) rather than ticagrelor (45.6 vs. 58.2%, P = 0.003) than those without cancer. After pairwise matching, patients with cancer were less likely to undergo in-hospital percutaneous coronary intervention (61.3 vs. 70.0%, P = 0.055). And after 3-year follow-up, the cumulative incidence of cardiovascular death (14.0 vs. 8.3%; adjusted HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.11–3.39; P = 0.021) among patients with cancer was significantly higher than that among the matched controls, a similar pattern was observed for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke (16.0 vs. 10.3%; adjusted HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.21–3.26; P = 0.007). Moreover, patients with a historical cancer diagnosis within 5 years had a higher risk of cardiovascular ischemic events.

Conclusions

AMI patients with a concomitant diagnosis of cancer tended to be treated with conservative therapies and were at substantially higher risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

Index Admission and Thirty-Day Readmission Outcomes of Patients With Cancer Presenting With STEMI

BACKGROUND

National-level data of cancer patients' readmissions after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this study was to compare the rates and causes of 30-day readmissions in patients with and without cancer.

METHODS

Among patients admitted with STEMI in the United States National Readmission Database (NRD) from October 2015-December 2017, we identified patients with the diagnosis of active breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer. The primary endpoint was the 30-day unplanned readmission rate. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital outcomes during the index admission and causes of readmissions. A propensity score model was used to compare the outcomes of patients with and without cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 385,522 patients were included in the analysis: 5956 with cancer and 379,566 without cancer. After propensity score matching, 23,880 patients were compared (Cancer = 5949, No Cancer = 17,931). Patients with cancer had higher 30-day readmission rates (19% vs. 14%, p < 0.01). The most common causes for readmission among patients with cancer were cardiac (31%), infectious (21%), oncologic (17%), respiratory (4%), stroke (4%), and renal (3%). During the first readmission, patients with cancer had higher adjusted rates of in-hospital mortality (15% vs. 7%; p < 0.01) and bleeding complications (31% vs. 21%; p < 0.01), compared to the non-cancer group. In addition, cancer (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2-1.6, p < 0.01) was an independent predictor for 30-day readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

About one in five cancer patients presenting with STEMI will be readmitted within 30 days. Cardiac causes predominated the reason for 30-day readmissions in patients with cancer.

Coronary Artery Disease and Cancer: Treatment and Prognosis Regarding Gender Differences

Simple Summary

Cardiovascular disease and cancer are the leading causes of hospitalization and mortality in high-income countries. Studies of myocardial infarction show a disadvantage for the female sex in terms of survival and development of heart failure after myocardial infarction. The extent to which this also applies to the co-occurrence of coronary heart disease and cancer was investigated and analyzed here in large registry studies. Particular attention has been paid to the four most common cancers and hematologic diseases associated with coronary artery disease requiring treatment.

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease and cancer remain the leading causes of hospitalization and mortality in high-income countries. Survival after myocardial infarction has improved but there is still a difference in clinical outcome, mortality, and developing heart failure to the disadvantage of women with myocardial infarction. Most major cardiology trials and registries have excluded patients with cancer. As a result, there is only very limited information on the effects of coronary artery disease in cancer patients. In particular, the outcomes in women with cancer and coronary artery disease and its management remain empiric. We reviewed studies of over 27 million patients with coronary artery disease and cancer. Our review focused on the most important types of cancer (breast, colon, lung, prostate) and hematological malignancies with particular attention to sex-specific differences in treatment and prognosis.

Acute and Long-Term Outcomes of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Cancer Patients, a 'Real World' Analysis with 175,000 Patients

BACKGROUND

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cancer are common and serious diseases. As the prognosis and treatment of both diseases has improved, more cancer patients will suffer an AMI. Unfortunately, data on these "double hit" patients is scarce.

METHODS

From the largest public German health insurance, anonymized data of all patients with pre-existing cancer who were hospitalized due to ST-elevation MI (STEMI) between 2010 and 2017 were analyzed and followed-up until 2018.

RESULTS

Of 175,262 STEMI patients, 27,213 had pre-existing cancer (15.5%). Most frequent were skin (24.9%), prostate (17.0%), colon (11.0%), breast (10.9%), urinary tract (10.6%), and lung cancer (5.2%). STEMI patients with malignancies were older and presented more often with coronary three-vessel disease, atrial arrhythmias, chronic kidney disease, chronic heart failure, cerebrovascular and peripheral artery disease (PAD, each p < 0.001). They showed more often previous AMI, percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), cardiac surgery, and stroke (all p < 0.001). Acute PCIs were applied between 2 and 6% less frequently compared to those without cancer. In-hospital adverse events occurred more frequently in cancer. Eight-year survival was 57.3% (95% CI 57.0-57.7%) without cancer and ranged between 41.2% and 19.2% in distinct cancer types. Multivariable Cox regression for all-cause mortality found, e.g., lung cancer (HR 2.04), PAD stage 4-6 (HR 1.78), metastasis (HR 1.72), and previous stroke (HR 1.44) to have the strongest impact (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this large "real world" data, prognosis after STEMI in cancer patients was markedly reduced but differed widely between cancer types. Of note, no withholding of interventional treatments in cancer patients could be observed.

Common Pathophysiology in Cancer, Atrial Fibrillation, Atherosclerosis, and Thrombosis: JACC: CardioOncology State-of-the-Art Review

Cardiovascular disease and cancer are the 2 leading causes of death worldwide. Emerging evidence suggests common mechanisms between cancer and cardiovascular disease, including atrial fibrillation and atherosclerosis. With advances in cancer therapies, screening, and diagnostics, cancer-specific survival and outcomes have improved. This increase in survival has led to the coincidence of cardiovascular disease, including atrial fibrillation and atherosclerosis, as patients with cancer live longer. Additionally, cancer and cardiovascular disease share several risk factors and underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, including inflammation, cancer-related factors including treatment effects, and alterations in platelet function. Patients with cancer are at increased risk for bleeding and thrombosis compared with the general population. Although optimal antithrombotic therapy, including agent choice and duration, has been extensively studied in the general population, this area remains understudied in patients with cancer despite their altered thrombotic and bleeding risk. Future investigation, including incorporation of cancer-specific characteristics to traditional thrombotic and bleeding risk scores, clinical trials in the cancer population, and the development of novel antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory strategies on the basis of shared pathophysiologic mechanisms, is warranted to improve outcomes in this patient population.

Cardiac Computed Tomography in Cardio-Oncology: JACC: CardioOncology Primer

Cancer patients and survivors have elevated cardiovascular risk when compared with noncancer patients. Cardio-oncology has emerged as a new subspecialty to comanage and address cardiovascular complications in cancer patients such as heart failure, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), valvular heart disease, pericardial disease, and arrhythmias. Cardiac computed tomography (CT) can be helpful in identifying both clinical and subclinical ASCVD in cancer patients and survivors. Radiation therapy treatment planning CT scans and cancer staging/re-staging imaging studies can quantify calcium scores which can identify pre-existing subclinical ASCVD. Cardiac CT can be helpful in the evaluation of cardiac tumors and pericardial diseases, especially in patients who cannot tolerate or have a contraindication to cardiac magnetic resonance. In this review, we describe the optimal utilization of cardiac CT in cancer patients, including risk assessment for ASCVD and identification of cancer treatment-related cardiovascular toxicity.

Impact of cancer on short-term in-hospital mortality after primary acute myocardial infarction

Background

Cardiovascular diseases are the second most common cause of mortality among cancer survivors, after death from cancer. We sought to assess the impact of cancer on the short-term outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), by analysing data obtained from a large-scale database.

Methods

This study was based on the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database in the Japanese Registry of All Cardiac and Vascular Diseases and the Diagnosis Procedure Combination. We identified patients who were hospitalised for primary AMI between April 2012 and March 2017. Propensity Score (PS) was estimated with logistic regression model, with cancer as the dependent variable and 21 clinically relevant covariates. The main outcome was in-hospital mortality.

Results

We split 1 52 208 patients into two groups with or without cancer. Patients with cancer tended to be older (cancer group 73±11 years vs non-cancer group 68±13 years) and had smaller body mass index (cancer group 22.8±3.6 vs non-cancer 23.9±4.3). More patients in the non-cancer group had hypertension or dyslipidaemia than their cancer group counterparts. The non-cancer group also had a higher rate of percutaneous coronary intervention (cancer 92.6% vs non-cancer 95.2%). Patients with cancer had a higher 30-day mortality (cancer 6.0% vs non-cancer 5.3%) and total mortality (cancer 8.1% vs non-cancer 6.1%) rate, but this was statistically insignificant after PS matching.

Conclusion

Cancer did not significantly impact short-term in-hospital mortality rates after hospitalisation for primary AMI.

Impact of Active and Historical Cancer on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

Patients with cancer have an increased risk of cardiovascular events including myocardial infarction (MI) and vice versa, and are at high risks of ischemic and bleeding events after MI. However, short- and long-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute MI based on cancer status are not fully understood. This bi-center registry included 903 patients with acute MI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention in a contemporary setting. Patients were divided into active cancer, a history of cancer, and no cancer according to the status of malignancy. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, recurrent MI, and stroke, and major bleedings were evaluated. Of 903 patients, 49 (5.4%) and 65 (7.2%) had active cancer and a history of cancer, and 87 (9.6%) patients died during the hospitalization. In-hospital MACE was not significantly different among the 3 groups (16.3% vs 10.8% vs 10.9%, p = 0.48), whereas the rate of major bleeding events during the index hospitalization was significantly higher in patients with active cancer than their counterpart (20.4% vs 6.2% vs 5.8%, p = 0.002). After discharge, patients with active cancer had an increased risk of MACE and major bleedings compared with those with a history of cancer and no cancer during the mean follow-up period of 853 days. In conclusions, active cancer rather than a history of cancer and no cancer had significant impact on in-hospital bleeding events, and MACE and major bleedings after discharge in patients with acute MI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Impact of malignancy on In-hospital mortality, stratified by the cause of admission: An analysis of 67 million patients from the National Inpatient Sample

OBJECTIVE

To describe the patient characteristics and the reason for admission of patients with malignancy by malignancy, and to study mortality rates for the different causes of admissions among the different types of cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using the nationwide Inpatient Sampling (2015-2017) we examined the cause of admission and associated in-hospital mortality, stratified by presence and type of malignancy. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association between in-hospital mortality and malignancy sites for different primary admission causes.

RESULTS

Out of 67 819 693 inpatient admissions, 8.8% had malignancy. Amongst those with malignancy, haematological malignancy was the most common (20.2%). The most common cause of admission amongst all cancers were malignancy-related admissions, where up to 57% of all colorectal admissions were malignancy-related. The most common non-malignancy cause of admission was infectious causes, which were most frequent among patients with haematological malignancy (18.4%). Patients with malignancy had higher crude mortality rates (5.7% vs 1.9%). Mortality rates were highest among patients with lung cancer (8.7%). Among all admissions, the adjusted rates of mortality were higher for patients with lung (OR 3.65, 95% CI [3.59-3.71]), breast (OR 2.06, 95% CI [1.99-2.13]), haematological (OR 1.79, 95% CI [1.76-1.82]) and colorectal (OR 1.71, 95% CI [1.66-1.76]) malignancies compared with patients with no malignancy.

CONCLUSION

Our work highlights the need to consider the burden of cancer on our hospital services and consider how the prognostic impact of different types of admissions may relate to the type of cancer diagnosis and understand whether these differences relate to disparities in clinical care/treatments.

Evaluation and management of cancer patients presenting with acute cardiovascular disease: a Consensus Document of the Acute CardioVascular Care (ACVC) association and the ESC council of Cardio-Oncology-Part 1: acute coronary syndromes and acute pericardial diseases

Advances in treatment, common cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and the ageing of the population have led to an increasing number of cancer patients presenting with acute CV diseases. These events may be related to the cancer itself or the cancer treatment. Acute cardiac care specialists must be aware of these acute CV complications and be able to manage them. This may require an individualized and multidisciplinary approach. We summarize the most common acute CV complications of cytotoxic, targeted, and immune-based therapies. This is followed by a proposal for a multidisciplinary approach where acute cardiologists work close together with the treating oncologists, haematologists, and radiation specialists, especially in situations where immediate therapeutic decisions are needed. In this first part, we further focus on the management of acute coronary syndromes and acute pericardial diseases in patients with cancer.

Validation of the 4-Item PRECISE-DAPT Score: A SWEDEHEART Study

Background

The Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (PRECISE‐DAPT) score has been shown to predict out‐of‐hospital major bleeding after myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). However, large validation studies have been scarce and the discriminative ability for patients with a preexisting bleeding risk factor (elderly, underweight, women, anemia, kidney dysfunction, or cancer) in a real‐world setting is unknown.

Methods and Results

Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction between 2008 and 2017 were included from the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web System for Enhancement of Evidence‐Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) registry (n=66 295). The predictive value of the PRECISE‐DAPT score for rehospitalization with major bleeding during dual antiplatelet therapy was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic analyses. A high PRECISE‐DAPT score (≥25; n=13 894) was associated with increased risk of major bleeding (3.9% versus 1.8%; hazard ratio [HR], 2.2; 95% CI, 2.0–2.5; P<0.001) compared with a non‐high score (<25; n=52 401). The score demonstrated a c‐statistic of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.63–0.66). The discriminative ability of the score to further stratify bleeding risk in patients with preexisting bleeding risk factors was poor, especially in patients who are elderly (c‐statistic=0.57; 95% CI, 0.55–0.60) or underweight (c‐statistic=0.56; 95% CI, 0.51–0.61), for whom a non‐high PRECISE‐DAPT score was associated with similar bleeding risk as a high PRECISE‐DAPT score in the general myocardial infarction population.

Conclusions

In this nationwide population‐based study, the PRECISE‐DAPT score performed moderately in the general myocardial infarction population and poorly in patients with preexisting bleeding risk factors, where its usefulness seems limited.

Outcomes of cardiac arrest complicating acute myocardial infarction in patients with current and historical cancer: An 18-year United States cohort study

BACKGROUND

Data regarding cardiac arrest (CA) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients with cancers are limited.

METHODS

Using the HCUP-NIS database (2000-2017), we identified adult admissions with AMI-CA and current or historical cancers to evaluate in-hospital mortality, utilization of coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), mechanical circulatory support (MCS), palliative care consultation, do-not-resuscitate status use, among those with current, historical and without cancer.

RESULTS

Of 11,622,528 AMI admissions, CA was noted in 584,263 (5.0%). Current and historical cancers were identified in 14,790 (2.5%) and 26,939 (4.6%), respectively. Both current and historical cancer groups were on average older, of white race, had greater comorbidity, and received care at small/medium-sized hospitals compared to those without. The current cancer cohort had the lowest rates of coronary angiography (45.2% vs. 59.2% vs. 63.3%), PCI (32.4% vs. 42.3% vs. 47.0%), MCS (13.5% vs. 16.5% vs. 20.9%) and CABG (4.1% vs. 7.6% vs. 10.2%) compared to the historical cancer and no cancer cohorts (all p < 0.001). Compared to those without, the current (61.1% vs. 44.0%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.25 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.20-1.31], p < 0.001) and historical cancer cohorts (52.2% vs. 44.0%; adjusted OR 1.05 [95% CI 1.01-1.08], p = 0.003) had higher in-hospital mortality. Cancer admissions had higher rates of palliative care consultations and do-not-resuscitate status.

CONCLUSION

AMI-CA admissions with cancer were older, had lower utilization of cardiac procedures, and higher rates of palliative care and do-not-resuscitate status and in-hospital mortality compared to those without cancer.

Relation Between Cancer and Vasospastic Angina

INTRODUCTION

Patients with cancer have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease including ischemic heart disease and vice versa. Anticancer drugs and radiotherapy are known to contribute to endothelial injury and vasospasm. However, the relations between vasospastic angina (VSA) and cancer or its treatment are poorly investigated.

METHODS

A total of 786 patients underwent intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) provocation tests to diagnose VSA. The positive ACh provocation test was defined as angiographic coronary artery spasm accompanied by chest pain and/or ischemic electrocardiographic changes. Patients were divided into active cancer, a history of cancer, and no cancer according to the status of malignancy. The impact of types of cancer, anticancer drugs, and radiotherapy on VSA was evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 786 patients, 38 (4.8%) and 84 (10.7%) had active cancer and a history of cancer, respectively, and 401 (51.0%) were diagnosed as VSA. There was no significant difference in rates of positive ACh test among patients with active cancer, a history of cancer, and no cancer (39.5% vs. 57.1% vs. 50.9%, p = 0.20). Types of cancer and cancer treatment also had no impact on positive ACh provocation test.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cross-sectional observational study, we did not find an association of active and a history of cancer with the diagnosis of VSA. Anticancer treatment including chemotherapy and radiotherapy was not significantly associated with positive ACh provocation test.

Nutrition Status and Renal Function as Predictors in Acute Myocardial Infarction with and without Cancer: A Single Center Retrospective Study

Background: Clinical characteristics of nutrition status in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with cancer remains unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify the differences of clinical parameters, including nutrition status, between AMI patients with and without history of cancer. Methods and Results: This retrospective cohort study, using the database of AMI between 2014 and 2019 in Kurume University Hospital, enrolled 411 patients; AMI patients without cancer (n = 358, 87.1%) and with cancer (n = 53, 12.9%). AMI patients with cancer were significantly older with lower body weight, worse renal function, and worse nutrition status. Next, we divided the patients into 4 groups by cancer, age, and plaque area, detected by coronary image devices. The prediction model indicated that nutrition, lipid, and renal functions were significant predictors of AMI with cancer. The ordinal logistic regression model revealed that worse nutrition status, renal dysfunction, lower uric acid, and elevated blood pressure were significant predictors. Finally, we were able to calculate the probability of the presence of cancer, by combining each factor and scoring. Conclusions: Worse nutrition status and renal dysfunction were associated with AMI with cancer, in which nutrition status was a major different characteristic from those without cancer.

Temporal Trends, Management and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction with Concomitant Respiratory Infections

There are limited contemporary data on the management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients with concomitant acute respiratory infections. Hence, using the National Inpatient Sample from 2000-2017, adult AMI admissions with and without concomitant respiratory infections were identified. We evaluated in-hospital mortality, utilization of cardiac procedures, hospital length of stay, hospitalization costs, and discharge disposition. Among 10,880,856 AMI admissions, respiratory infections were identified in 745,536 (6.9%). Temporal trends revealed a relatively stable tr end with a peak during 2008-2009. Admissions with respiratory infections were on average older (74 vs. 67 years), female (45% vs 39%), with greater comorbidity (mean Charlson comorbidity index 5.9 ± 2.2 vs 4.4 ± 2.3), and had higher rates of non-ST-segment-elevation AMI presentation (71.8% vs. 62.2%) (all p < 0.001). Higher rates of cardiac arrest (8.2% vs 4.8%), cardiogenic shock (10.7% vs 4.4%), and acute organ failure (27.8% vs 8.1%) were seen in AMI admissions with respiratory infections. Coronary angiography (41.4% vs 65.6%, p < 0.001) and percutaneous coronary intervention (20.7% vs 43.5%, p < 0.001) were used less commonly in those with respiratory infections. Admissions with respiratory infections had higher in-hospital mortality (14.5% vs 5.5%; propensity matched analysis: 14.6% vs 12.5%; adjusted odds ratio 1.25 [95% confidence interval 1.24-1.26], p < 0.001), longer hospital stay, higher hospitalization costs, and less frequent discharges to home compared to those without respiratory infections. In conclusion, respiratory infections significantly impact AMI admissions with higher rates of complications, mortality and resource utilization.

Prevalence, clinical characteristics, and impact of active cancer in patients with acute myocardial infarction: data from an all-comer registry

BACKGROUND

Although a history of cancer is a poor prognostic factor in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the clinical importance of coexisting active cancer remains unclear.

METHODS

In this single-center retrospective study, we reviewed an AMI registry and assessed the prevalence and predictors of active cancer, 1-year incidence of cardiac death or major bleeding events (defined as a Bleeding Academy Research Consortium type 3 or 5), and the impact of coexisting active cancer on clinical outcomes. Active cancer was defined as either an already-diagnosed or undiagnosed occult cancer.

RESULTS

Between January 2012 and December 2017, 1140 AMI patients (median age, 69 years; male, 76.0%) were enrolled. Active and historical cancers were diagnosed in 63 patients (5.5%) and 50 patients (4.4%), respectively. The most common location was the urinary tract (n=21). In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, the active cancer group had a higher incidence of 1-year cardiac death (17.5% vs. 5.3%, p < 0.001) and major bleeding events (19.0% vs. 5.6%, p < 0.001) than the non-cancer group. In the multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models, active cancer was an independent predictor of both cardiac death and major bleeding at 1 year. Specifically, gastrointestinal tract and advanced-stage cancers had the poorest outcomes. Compared to the non-cancer group, the 1-year major bleeding rate was higher for all cancer types and stages. In contrast, early-stage cancers had a weaker impact on the 1-year cardiac mortality compared to advanced-stage cancers. Similarly, cardiac death during 1-year also occurred less frequently in occult cancers than in already-known cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AMI, coexisting active cancer was rare, but it significantly impacted cardiac death and major bleeding events.

Challenges and Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Cancer Patients

Cancer and cardiovascular disease are the leading causes of mortality in the world. The prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and coronary artery disease in cancer patients is elevated, and it is associated with high mortality. Several mechanisms, such as the proinflammatory and procoagulant states present in cancer patients, may contribute to these scenarios. Oncological therapy can predispose patients to acute thrombosis, accelerated atherosclerosis and coronary spasm. Treatment decisions must be individualized and based on the cancer history and balancing bleeding and thrombosis risks.

A retrospective analysis of cardiovascular adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

Background

Modern therapies in oncology have increased cancer survivorship, as well as the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events. While immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown significant clinical impact in several cancer types, the incidence of immune-related cardiovascular (CV) adverse events poses an additional health concern and has been reported.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System data of suspect product reports for immunotherapy and classical chemotherapy from January 2010–March 2020. We identified 90,740 total adverse event reports related to immune checkpoint inhibitors and classical chemotherapy.

Results

We found that myocarditis was significantly associated with patients receiving anti-program cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or anti-program death ligand 1 (PD-L1), odds ratio (OR) = 23.86 (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.76–48.42, (adjusted p-value) q <  0.001), and combination immunotherapy, OR = 7.29 (95% CI 1.03–51.89, q = 0.047). Heart failure was significantly associated in chemotherapy compared to PD-(L)1, OR = 0.50 (95% CI 0.37–0.69, q <  0.001), CTLA4, OR = 0.08 (95% CI 0.03–0.20, q <  0.001), and combination immunotherapy, OR = 0.25 (95% CI 0.13–0.48, q <  0.001). Additionally, we observe a sex-specificity towards males in cardiac adverse reports for arrhythmias, OR = 0.81 (95% CI 0.75–0.87, q <  0.001), coronary artery disease, 0.63 (95% CI 0.53–0.76, q <  0.001), myocardial infarction, OR = 0.60 (95% CI 0.53–0.67, q <  0.001), myocarditis, OR = 0.59 (95% CI 0.47–0.75, q <  0.001) and pericarditis, OR = 0.5 (95% CI 0.35–0.73, q <  0.001).

Conclusion

Our study provides the current risk estimates of cardiac adverse events in patients treated with immunotherapy compared to conventional chemotherapy. Understanding the clinical risk factors that predispose immunotherapy-treated cancer patients to often fatal CV adverse events will be crucial in Cardio-Oncology management.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40959-021-00106-x.

Coronary artery disease in patients with cancer: challenges and opportunities for improvement

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a common comorbidity in patients with cancer. We review shared risk factors between the two diseases and cancer treatments that increase the risk of CAD. We also discuss outcomes and management considerations of patients with cancer who develop CAD.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several traditional and novel risk factors promote the development of both CAD and cancer. Several cancer treatments further increase the risk of CAD. The presence of cancer is associated with a higher burden of comorbidities and thrombocytopenia, which predisposes patients to higher bleeding risks. Patients with cancer who develop acute coronary syndromes are less likely to receive timely revascularization or appropriate medical therapy, despite evidence showing that receipt of these interventions is associated with substantial benefit. Accordingly, a cancer diagnosis is associated with worse outcomes in patients with CAD. The risk-benefit balance of revascularization is becoming more favorable due to the improving prognosis of many cancers and safer revascularization strategies, including shorter requirements for dual antiplatelet therapy after revascularization.

SUMMARY

Several factors increase the complexity of managing CAD in patients with cancer. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended to guide treatment decisions in this high-risk and growing patient group.

Nuclear Imaging for the Assessment of Cardiotoxicity from Chemotherapeutic Agents in Oncologic Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we summarize the major known cardiac toxicities of common chemotherapeutic agents and the role of nuclear cardiac imaging for the surveillance and assessment of cancer therapeutics-related cardiac dysfunction in routine clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cardiotoxicity from chemotherapy causes a significant mortality and limits potentially life-saving treatment in cancer patients. Close monitoring of cardiac function during chemotherapy is an accepted method for reducing these adverse effects especially in patients with cancer therapeutics-related cardiac dysfunction. Nuclear imaging is a sensitive, specific, and highly reproducible modality for assessment of cardiac function. Nuclear imaging techniques including equilibrium radio nucleotide angiography, myocardial perfusion imaging, and novel experimental molecular imaging are the various objective tools available in addition to conventional echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the surveillance, assessment, and follow-up of cancer therapeutics-related cardiac dysfunction.

Prognosis of Acute Ischaemic Stroke Patients with Cancer: A National Inpatient Sample Study

Whilst cancer is a risk factor for acute ischaemic stroke (AIS), its impact on AIS prognosis between metastatic and non-metastatic (MC and NMC) disease is poorly understood. Furthermore, the receipt of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular thrombectomy (ET) and their outcomes is poorly researched. AIS admissions from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) were included (October 2015-December 2017). Multivariable logistic regressions adjusting for a wide range of confounders analysed the relationship between NMC and MC and AIS in-hospital outcomes (mortality, prolonged hospitalisation >4 days and routine home discharge). Interaction terms with IVT and ET were also computed to explore their impact amongst cancer patients. A total of 221,249 records representative of 1,106,045 admissions were included. There were 38,855 (3.51%) AIS admissions with co-morbid cancer: NMC = 53.78% and MC = 46.22%. NMC was associated with 23% increased odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio (95% confidence interval) = 1.23 (1.07-1.42)), which was mainly driven by pancreatic and respiratory cancers. This association was entirely offset by both IVT and ET. MC was associated with two-fold increased odds of in-hospital mortality (2.16 (1.90-2.45)), which was mainly driven by respiratory, pancreatic and colorectal cancers. This association was only offset by ET. Both NMC and MC were significantly associated with prolonged hospitalisation and decreased odds of routine discharge. Cancer patients are at higher odds of acute adverse outcomes after AIS and warrant robust primary prevention. IVT and ET improve these outcomes and should thus be offered routinely unless otherwise contraindicated in this group of stroke patients.

Machine Learning-Augmented Propensity Score Analysis of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Over 30 Million Cancer and Non-cancer Patients

Background: It is unknown to what extent the clinical benefits of PCI outweigh the risks and costs in patients with vs. without cancer and within each cancer type. We performed the first known nationally representative propensity score analysis of PCI mortality and cost among all eligible adult inpatients by cancer and its types.

Methods: This multicenter case-control study used machine learning–augmented propensity score–adjusted multivariable regression to assess the above outcomes and disparities using the 2016 nationally representative National Inpatient Sample.

Results: Of the 30,195,722 hospitalized patients, 15.43% had a malignancy, 3.84% underwent an inpatient PCI (of whom 11.07% had cancer and 0.07% had metastases), and 2.19% died inpatient. In fully adjusted analyses, PCI vs. medical management significantly reduced mortality for patients overall (among all adult inpatients regardless of cancer status) and specifically for cancer patients (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75–0.89; p < 0.001), mainly driven by active vs. prior malignancy, head and neck and hematological malignancies. PCI also significantly reduced cancer patients' total hospitalization costs (beta USD$ −8,668.94, 95% CI −9,553.59 to −7,784.28; p < 0.001) independent of length of stay. There were no significant income or disparities among PCI subjects.

Conclusions: Our study suggests among all eligible adult inpatients, PCI does not increase mortality or cost for cancer patients, while there may be particular benefit by cancer type. The presence or history of cancer should not preclude these patients from indicated cardiovascular care.

Clinical predictors and sequelae of computed tomography defined leaflet thrombosis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement at medium-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

The clinical predictors and sequelae of leaflet thrombosis (LT) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is still unclear. Therefore, our aim was to determine the clinical predictors and sequelae at mid-term follow-up of computed tomography (CT)-defined LT following TAVR.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a prospective evaluation with a 320-multislice CT following TAVR for the presence of LT, defined as hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening (HALT). Four-dimensional CT image-rendering was performed to determine the presence of reduced leaflet motion (RELM). 172 patients [89 (51.7%) male, mean age 82.8 ± 5.7 years] treated with commercially available TAVR device (Lotus 54%, CoreValve 32% and Sapien 3 14%) were included, with median CT-scan at 6.0 weeks post-TAVR. Prevalence of HALT was 14.0% (24 cases) and RELM was 9.8% (17 cases). On multivariate analysis, patients with HALT were less prescribed oral anticoagulation (OAC) (OR 9.9), received larger TAVR prostheses (OR 5.7) and higher rates of moderate-severe para-valvular regurgitation (PVR) (OR 16.3). There was no difference in clinical outcomes at a median follow-up of 2.3 years. Patients with RELM had significantly higher transvalvular gradients after discharge when compared to those without RELM.

CONCLUSIONS

Absence of OAC, large TAVR prostheses and moderate-severe PVR were predictors for LT. Transvalvular gradients were higher in patients that developed RELM but not HALT. Further studies are warranted to determine the long-term impact of LT on TAVR durability. Prevalence of different sub-types of CT-defined LT (HALT and RELM) and the clinical predictors of developing LT following TAVR. CT computed tomography, HALT hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening, LT leaflet thrombosis, RELM reduced leaflet motion, TAVR transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Temporal trends in short and long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions among cancer patients

While mortality of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is known to have steadily decline over the last decades, data are lacking regarding the complex sub-population of patients with both coronary artery disease and cancer. A large single-center percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) registry was used to retrieve patients who had a known diagnosis of malignancy during PCI. Patients were divided into two groups according to the period in which PCI was performed (period 1: 2006-2011, period 2: 2012-2017). Cox regression hazard models were implemented to compare primary endpoint, defined as the composite outcomes of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (which include cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization) and secondary endpoint of all-cause mortality, between the two time periods. A total of 3286 patients were included, 1819 (55%) had undergone PCI in period 1, and 1467 (45%) in period 2. Both short- and long-term MACE and overall mortality were significantly lower in patients who underwent PCI at the latter period (2.3% vs. 4.3%, p < 0.001 and 1.1% vs. 3.2%, p < 0.001 after 30 days and 24% vs. 30%, p < 0.001 and 12% vs. 22%, p < 0.001 after 2 years, respectively). However, in a multivariate analysis, going through PCI in the latter period was still associated with lower rates of overall mortality (HR 0.708, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.93, p = 0.014) but there was no significant difference in MACE (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-1.42, p = 0.16). Patients with cancer undergoing PCI during our most contemporary period had an improved overall survival, but no significant differences were observed in the composite cardiovascular endpoints, compared to an earlier PCI period. The management of coronary patients with cancer disease remains challenging.

Effect of primary percutaneous coronary intervention on in-hospital outcomes among active cancer patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a propensity score matching analysis

AIMS

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the gold standard, guideline-recommended revascularization strategy in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there are limited data on its use and effectiveness among patients with active cancer presenting with STEMI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All STEMI hospitalizations between 2004 and 2015 from the National Inpatient Sample were retrospectively analysed, stratified by cancer type. Propensity score matching was performed to estimate the average treatment effect of pPCI in each cancer on in-hospital adverse events, including major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and its individual components, and compare treatment effect between cancer and non-cancer patients. Out of 1 870 815 patients with STEMI, 38 932 (2.1%) had a current cancer diagnosis [haematological: 11 251 (28.9% of all cancers); breast: 4675 (12.0%); lung: 9538 (24.5%); colon: 3749 (9.6%); prostate: 9719 (25.0%)]. Patients with cancer received pPCI less commonly than those without cancer (from 54.2% for lung cancer to 70.6% for haematological vs. 82.3% in no cancer). Performance of pPCI was strongly associated with lower adjusted probabilities of MACCE and all-cause mortality in the cancer groups compared with the no cancer group. There was no significant difference in estimated average pPCI treatment effect between the cancer groups and non-cancer group.

CONCLUSION

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is underutilized in STEMI patients with current cancer despite its significantly lower associated rates of in-hospital all-cause mortality and MACCE that is comparable to patients without cancer. Further work is required to assess the long-term benefit and safety of pPCI in this high-risk group.

Impact of malignancy on clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

The impact of cancer on survival in patients with coronary artery disease has not been well defined. We designed the present study to explore the prevalence and prognostic influence of cancer in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

METHODS

2'132 patients with ACS were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter Special Program University Medicine ACS (SPUM-ACS) cohort. The primary endpoints of major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and death were independently adjudicated at 30-day and at one-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 2'132 ACS patients 7.74% (n = 165) had cancer. At 30-day, except for net adverse clinical events (NACE defined as MACCE plus major bleeding), outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. At one year, MACCE rate was higher in cancer than in non-cancer patients (21.8 vs. 12.2%, p < 0.001). Even after adjusting for covariates, one-year all-cause mortality was higher in cancer patients than in those without (30.3% vs. 11.9%; p < 0.0001) as was cardiovascular mortality (15.7% vs. 5.9%; p < 0.001) and revascularization (12.7% vs. 5.5%, p < 0.001). Net adverse clinical events were also higher in patients with cancer at one-year follow-up (33.9% vs. 19.8%, p < 0.001). A sub-analysis revealed that those with solid tumors, but not hematological malignancies were more likely to experience MACCE (p = 0.001) as well as a higher cardiovascular and all cause mortality (both p = 0.001) at one-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

ACS patients with cancer, specifically those with solid tumors, have a higher MACCE as well as cardiovascular and total mortality rate than non-cancer patients independent of cardiovascular risk factors. Thus, cancer is an independent risk factor for a poor outcome in ACS patients.

Characteristics, Management, and Outcomes of Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients with Cancer

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease, with a reported prevalence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) ranging from 3% to 17%. The increased risk of ACS in these patients seems to be due to the complex interaction of shared cardiovascular risk factors, cancer type and stage, and chemotherapeutic and radiotherapy regimens. The management of ACS in patients with cancer is a clinical challenge, particularly due to cancer's unique pathophysiology, which makes it difficult to balance thrombotic and bleeding risks in this specific patient population. In addition, patients with cancer have largely been excluded from ACS trials. Hence, an evidence-based treatment for ACS in this group of patients is unknown and only a limited proportion of them is treated with antiplatelets or invasive revascularization, despite initial reports suggesting their beneficial prognostic effects in cancer patients. Finally, cancer patients experiencing ACS are also at higher risk of in-hospital and long-term mortality as compared to non-cancer patients. In this review, we will provide an overview on the available evidence of the relationship between ACS and cancer, in terms of clinical manifestations, possible underlying mechanisms, and therapeutic and prognostic implications.

Prevalence and in-hospital outcomes of patients with malignancies undergoing de novo cardiac electronic device implantation in the USA

AIMS

To study the outcomes of cancer patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

De novo CIED implantations (2004-15; n = 2 670 590) from the National Inpatient Sample were analysed for characteristics and in-hospital outcomes, stratified by presence of cancer (no cancer, historical and current cancers) and further by current cancer type (haematological, lung, breast, colon, and prostate). Current and historical cancer prevalence has increased from 3.3% to 7.8%, and 5.8% to 7.8%, respectively, between 2004 and 2015. Current cancer was associated with increased adjusted odds ratio (OR) of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) [composite of all-cause mortality, thoracic and cardiac complications, and device-related infection; OR 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23-1.30], all-cause mortality (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.35-1.50), major bleeding (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.32-1.44), and thoracic complications (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.35-1.43). Differences in outcomes were observed according to cancer type, with significantly worse MACE, mortality and thoracic complications with lung and haematological malignancies, and increased major bleeding in colon and prostate malignancies. The risk of complications was also different according to CIED subtype.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of cancer patients amongst those undergoing CIED implantation has significantly increased over 12 years. Overall, current cancers are associated with increased mortality and worse outcomes, especially in patients with lung, haematological, and colon malignancies whereas there was no evidence that historical cancer had a negative impact on outcomes.