Previously diagnosed cancer and mortality after ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty

Impact of a Cancer History on Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With Myocardial Infarction Who Received Revascularization

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether a cancer history increases the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events among patients with myocardial infarction (MI) who undergo revascularization.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients who were confirmed as type 1 acute MI (AMI) by coronary angiography were retrospectively analyzed. Patients who died in hospital or those not undergoing revascularization were excluded. Patients with a cancer history were compared with those without it. A cancer history was examined in the in-hospital cancer registry. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiac death, recurrent type 1 MI, post-discharge coronary revascularization, heart failure hospitalization, and stroke. Among 551 AMI patients, 55 had a cancer history (cancer group) and 496 did not (non-cancer group). Cox proportional hazards model revealed that the risk of composite endpoint was significantly higher in the cancer group than in the non-cancer group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13-2.82). Among the cancer group, patients who were diagnosed as AMI within 6 months after the cancer diagnosis had a higher risk of the composite endpoint than those who were diagnosed as AMI 6 months or later after the cancer diagnosis (adjusted HR: 5.43; 95% CI: 1.55-19.07).

CONCLUSIONS

A cancer history increased the risk of CV events after discharge among AMI patients after revascularization.

In-hospital and one-year outcomes in cancer patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: A real-world study

BACKGROUND

Cancer and ischemic heart disease are the leading causes of mortality. The optimal management for patients with concomitant acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cancer remains challenging.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate in-hospital and 1-year adverse outcomes in cancer patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat AMI.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study, patients with cancer admitted to The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University for AMI and discharged between January 2015 and June 2020 were analyzed. The outcomes were all-cause mortality at 1-year follow up and incidence of in-hospital adverse events, including arrhythmias, heart failure, major bleeding, stroke, and all-cause death.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients were included, of these, 68 (57.1%) received PCI (PCI group) and 51 (42.9%) did not (non-PCI group). Patients in the PCI group had a lower incidence of in-hospital arrhythmias (22.1 vs. 39.2%; p = 0.042), major bleeding (2.9 vs. 15.7%; p = 0.013), and all-cause mortality (1.5 vs. 11.8%; p = 0.018) than those in non-PCI group. On 1-year follow-up, the PCI group had a lower all-cause mortality than the non-PCI group (log-rank test = 14.65; p < 0.001). Multivariable Cox regression showed that PCI is an independent protective factor (adjusted HR = 0.503 [0.243-0.947], p = 0.045) for cancer patients who have concomitant AMI.

CONCLUSION

Cancer patients receiving PCI for AMI had a lower risk of in-hospital adverse events and mortality as well as 1-year all-cause mortality compared to those who refused PCI. Our study therefore supports the use of PCI to improve prognosis of this selected group of patients.

In-hospital and one-year outcomes in cancer patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: A real-world study

Background

Cancer and ischemic heart disease are the leading causes of mortality. The optimal management for patients with concomitant acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cancer remains challenging.

Objective

To evaluate in-hospital and 1-year adverse outcomes in cancer patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat AMI.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study, patients with cancer admitted to The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University for AMI and discharged between January 2015 and June 2020 were analyzed. The outcomes were all-cause mortality at 1-year follow up and incidence of in-hospital adverse events, including arrhythmias, heart failure, major bleeding, stroke, and all-cause death.

Results

A total of 119 patients were included, of these, 68 (57.1%) received PCI (PCI group) and 51 (42.9%) did not (non-PCI group). Patients in the PCI group had a lower incidence of in-hospital arrhythmias (22.1 vs. 39.2%; p = 0.042), major bleeding (2.9 vs. 15.7%; p = 0.013), and all-cause mortality (1.5 vs. 11.8%; p = 0.018) than those in non-PCI group. On 1-year follow-up, the PCI group had a lower all-cause mortality than the non-PCI group (log-rank test = 14.65; p < 0.001). Multivariable Cox regression showed that PCI is an independent protective factor (adjusted HR = 0.503 [0.243-0.947], p = 0.045) for cancer patients who have concomitant AMI.

Conclusion

Cancer patients receiving PCI for AMI had a lower risk of in-hospital adverse events and mortality as well as 1-year all-cause mortality compared to those who refused PCI. Our study therefore supports the use of PCI to improve prognosis of this selected group of patients.

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.

STEMI in the cancer patient: Do not withhold primary PCI!

Poor outcomes observed in cancer patients who sustain STEMI are due, in part, to advanced age, comorbidities, and underutilization of guidelines-based therapies. Coronary angiography in the cancer patient is more likely to demonstrate MINOCA, but the majority have critical disease and PCI success is similar to noncancer patients. We recommend primary PCI with stenting as the default strategy in STEMI patients with cancer.