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

Short- and long-term outcomes of patients with active cancer presenting with an acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Management of cancer patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) may be challenging. In this study, we sought to examine whether and how a concomitant diagnosis of active cancer affects patients' management and outcomes following an event of ACS.

METHODS

We used a retrospective cohort data analysis of patients from the Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Survey (ACSIS) carried out between the years 2016-2021 to compare patients with and without a concomitant diagnosis of active cancer.

RESULTS

Of 4913 patients who presented with an ACS, 90 (1.8%) patients had a concomitant active cancer. Cancer patients were older, with a higher prevalence of hypertension and chronic renal failure. The rate of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was similar (40%) between both groups. Cancer patients were less likely to undergo coronary angiography during hospitalization; but once it was performed, the rate of percutaneous coronary intervention was similar. The presence of cancer during an ACS was associated with an increased short- and long-term mortality. In a multivariate analysis, the risk for 1-year mortality remained significantly higher in cancer patient (HR 2.72, 95% CI 1.74-4.24, p < 0.001), and was most prominent in patients presenting with STEMI (HR 5.00, 95% CI 2.40-10.39, p < 0.001). Short- and long-term death rates were also higher in cancer patients after a propensity score matching and adjustment for comorbidities other than cancer.

CONCLUSION

Despite significant advances in oncologic and cardiac care, the presence of active cancer in patients with an ACS is still associated with significantly increased risk for 1-year mortality.

Cancer Incidence and Survival Among Patients Following an Acute Coronary Syndrome

To examine the role of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in subsequent cancer incidence and survival, 2 cohorts of patients hospitalized with ACS were matched 1:1 by gender and age (±3 years) to cardiovascular disease (CVD)-free patients from 2 cycles of the Israeli National Health and Nutrition Surveys. Data on all-cause mortality were retrieved from national registries. Cancer incidence with death treated as a competing event, overall survival, and mortality risk associated with incident cancer as a time-dependent variable were compared between the groups. Our cohort included 2,040 cancer-free matched pairs (mean age of 60±14 years, 42.5% women). Despite higher rates of smokers and patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus, 10-year cumulative cancer incidence was significantly lower in the ACS group compared with CVD-free group (8.0% vs 11.4%, p = 0.02). This decreased risk was more pronounced in women than men (pinteraction = 0.05). Although being free of CVD meant a significant (p <0.001) survival advantage in the general cohort, this advantage faded once a cancer diagnosis was made (p = 0.80). After adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical covariates, the hazard ratios for mortality associated with a cancer diagnosis were 2.96 (95% confidence interval: 2.36 to 3.71) in the ACS group versus 6.41 (95% confidence interval: 4.96 to 8.28) in the CVD-free group (Pinteraction<0.001). In conclusion, in this matched cohort, ACS was associated with a lower risk of cancer and mitigated the excess risk of mortality associated with cancer incidence.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cancer using bare metal stents compared to drug-eluting stents

Background

Management of coronary artery disease (CAD) is unique and challenging in cancer patients. However, little is known about the outcomes of using BMS or DES in these patients. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in cancer patients who were treated with bare metal stents (BMS) vs. drug-eluting stents (DES).

Methods

We identified cancer patients who underwent PCI using BMS or DES between 2013 and 2020. Outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and the number of revascularizations. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate the survival probability. Multivariate Cox regression models were utilized to compare OS between BMS and DES.

Results

We included 346 cancer patients who underwent PCI with a median follow-up of 34.1 months (95% CI, 28.4–38.7). Among these, 42 patients were treated with BMS (12.1%) and 304 with DES (87.9%). Age and gender were similar between the BMS and DES groups (p = 0.09 and 0.93, respectively). DES use was more frequent in the white race, while black patients had more BMS (p = 0.03). The use of DES was more common in patients with NSTEMI (p = 0.03). The median survival was 46 months (95% CI, 34–66). There was no significant difference in the number of revascularizations between the BMS and DES groups (p = 0.43). There was no significant difference in OS between the BMS and DES groups in multivariate analysis (p = 0.26). In addition, independent predictors for worse survival included age &gt; 65 years, BMI ≤ 25 g/m2, hemoglobin level ≤ 12 g/dL, and initial presentation with NSTEMI.

Conclusions

In our study, several revascularizations and survival were similar between cancer patients with CAD treated with BMS and DES. This finding suggests that DES use is not associated with an increased risk for stent thrombosis, and as cancer survival improves, there may be a more significant role for DES.

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.

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.

Comparing pharmacotherapy in MINOCA versus medically managed obstructive acute coronary syndrome

Most prior studies have compared myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA), to obstructive acute coronary syndrome (ACS) often requiring revascularisation. However, these were subject to treatment bias given the significant differences in management. This study uniquely compares the management and outcomes of MINOCA patients with a medically managed obstructive ACS (M-ACS) population. We retrospectively analysed registry data for consecutive patients admitted to the Gold Coast University Hospital with ACS requiring coronary angiography and identified patients with MINOCA and M-ACS. Baseline characteristics, pharmacological therapy and in-hospital outcomes were compared. In hospital outcomes were composite NACE, heart failure, stroke and major bleeding. Multivariate regression analysis was also performed to identify independent predictors of MINOCA. Multivariate regression analysis was also performed to identify independent predictors of MINOCA. We identified 139 patients with MINOCA and 142 patients with medically managed obstructive ACS (M-ACS). Multivariate regression analysis also identified female sex and cancer as independent predictors of MINOCA with odds ratios of 5.57 and 3.01, respectively. MINOCA patients were significantly less likely to receive cardioprotective medications at admission and discharge, specifically aspirin, beta-blockers, ACE-I and statins, compared to those with M-ACS. While mortality was higher among M-ACS patients (0.0% vs. 3.6%; p = 0.03), no significant differences were noted for composite NACE, heart failure, stroke and major bleeding. MINOCA patients have similar outcomes to M-ACS. Despite this, we noted a discrepancy in the use of cardioprotective medications. We also identified female sex and cancer were independent predictors of MINOCA. This may represent a missed opportunity to prevent adverse events among patients with MINOCA. Large, randomised trials are required to provide more definitive evidence.