Safety of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiac Catheterization in Cancer Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Chronic Thrombocytopenia

[The Cardio-Oncology Guideline - A Comprehensive Approach to Managing Cardiovascular Risks in Cancer Patients]

The emerging field of cardio-oncology addresses the critical need for specialized cardiovascular care in cancer patients, given the overlapping risk factors and potential cardiovascular complications of oncological therapies. In collaboration with the European Hematology Association (EHA), the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the first cardio-oncology guideline was developed and published in 2022. This guideline comprises 272 recommendations covering risk stratification before therapy initiation, monitoring during oncological treatment, and the diagnosis and treatment of therapy-associated cardiovascular side effects.A significant innovation in this guideline is the comprehensive risk stratification approach, which categorizes patients into low, moderate, and high-risk groups based on therapy-specific factors. This allows for tailored cardiovascular care during therapy, with varying frequencies of follow-up examinations depending on the patient's risk level. Notably, the guideline emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration between oncologists and cardiologists to optimize patient outcomes.Overall, the cardio-oncology guideline represents a significant advancement in addressing the complex cardiovascular needs of cancer patients. Its comprehensive recommendations and emphasis on interdisciplinary care underscore the importance of optimizing cardiovascular health throughout the oncological treatment journey.This review provides an overview of the guidelines and updates on the risk stratification and therapy of patients with immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated myocarditis (ICIM), as well as the role of statins in protecting against anthracycline-associated cardiotoxicity.

Ischaemic heart disease in patients with cancer

Cardiologists are encountering a growing number of cancer patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD). Several factors account for the interrelationship between these two conditions, in addition to improving survival rates in the cancer population. Established cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, such as hypercholesterolaemia and obesity, predispose to both IHD and cancer, through specific mechanisms and via low-grade, systemic inflammation. This latter is also fuelled by clonal haematopoiesis of indeterminate potential. Furthermore, experimental work indicates that IHD and cancer can promote one another, and the CV or metabolic toxicity of anticancer therapies can lead to IHD. The connections between IHD and cancer are reinforced by social determinants of health, non-medical factors that modify health outcomes and comprise individual and societal domains, including economic stability, educational and healthcare access and quality, neighbourhood and built environment, and social and community context. Management of IHD in cancer patients is often challenging, due to atypical presentation, increased bleeding and ischaemic risk, and worse outcomes as compared to patients without cancer. The decision to proceed with coronary revascularization and the choice of antithrombotic therapy can be difficult, particularly in patients with chronic coronary syndromes, necessitating multidisciplinary discussion that considers both general guidelines and specific features on a case by case basis. Randomized controlled trial evidence in cancer patients is very limited and there is urgent need for more data to inform clinical practice. Therefore, coexistence of IHD and cancer raises important scientific and practical questions that call for collaborative efforts from the cardio-oncology, cardiology, and oncology communities.

Interplay between acute coronary syndromes and cancer: insights into pathophysiology, diagnostic challenges, and treatment options

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and cancer are among the leading causes of death worldwide. In recent years, increasing evidence has suggested an interplay between these 2 conditions. This article reviews the pathophysiology, diagnostic challenges, and treatment options for ACS and cancer. The interplay between these conditions may be due to environmental, genetic, and metabolic factors. For example, smoking, hypertension, and obesity are risk factors for both ACS and cancer. Diagnosis of ACS and cancer can be challenging because the symptoms of these conditions often overlap. For example, chest pain can be a symptom of both ACS and a neoplasms. Treatment options for ACS and cancer are varied and depend on the type of disease, stage of disease, and individual patient factors. Treatment for ACS may include angioplasty, stenting, or medication therapy. Treatment for cancer may include surgical removal of the tumour, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy.

Aspirin use and bleeding events during thrombocytopenia after autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma

Background

In patients with cardiovascular (CV) comorbidities that necessitate antiplatelet therapy (APT), its optimal management during chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia remains elusive, as the risk of bleeding has to be balanced against the risk of CV events. The purpose of this study was to assess the risk for bleeding with APT during thrombocytopenia in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing high-dose chemotherapy and subsequent autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) with and without acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) as comedication.

Methods

We assessed patients who underwent ASCT at the Heidelberg University Hospital between 2011 and 2020 for bleeding events, management strategies for ASA intake during thrombocytopenia, transfusion requirements, and the occurrence of CV events.

Results

There were 57/1,113 patients who continued ASA until at least 1 day after ASCT; thus, a continuous platelet inhibition during thrombocytopenia was assumed. Most of the patients (41/57) continued ASA until they had a platelet count of 20-50/nl. This range reflects the kinetics of thrombocytopenia and nondaily measurements of platelets during ASCT. A tendency toward a higher risk for bleeding events in the ASA group was demonstrated (1.9% (control group) vs. 5.3% (ASA), p = 0.082). The risk factors for bleeding in multivariate analysis were the duration of thrombocytopenia < 50/nl, a history of gastrointestinal bleeding, and diarrhea. The factors predicting the duration of thrombocytopenia were age >60 years, a hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation comorbidity index ≥3, and an impaired bone marrow reserve at admission. CV events occurred in three patients; none of them took ASA or had an indication for APT.

Conclusions

The intake of ASA until thrombocytopenia with a platelet count of 20-50/nl appears safe, although an elevated risk cannot be excluded. If ASA is indicated for the secondary prevention of CV events, the evaluation of risk factors for bleeding and a prolonged time of thrombocytopenia before conditioning is crucial to adapt the strategy for ASA intake during thrombocytopenia.

Impact of Active and Historical Cancers on the Management and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicating Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the outcomes of acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) in patients with concomitant cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of adult AMI-CS admissions was identified from the National Inpatient Sample (2000-2017) and stratified by active cancer, historical cancer, and no cancer. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, use of coronary angiography, use of percutaneous coronary intervention, do-not-resuscitate status, palliative care use, hospitalization costs, and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

Of the 557,974 AMI-CS admissions during this 18-year period, active and historical cancers were noted in 14,826 (2.6%) and 27,073 (4.8%), respectively. From 2000 to 2017, there was a decline in active cancers (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.63-0.79]; P &lt; .001) and an increase in historical cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.89-2.25]; P &lt; .001). Compared with patients with no cancer, patients with active and historical cancer received less-frequent coronary angiography (57%, 67%, and 70%, respectively) and percutaneous coronary intervention (40%, 47%, and 49%%, respectively) and had higher do-not-resuscitate status (13%, 15%, 7%%, respectively) and palliative care use (12%, 10%, 6%%, respectively) (P &lt; .001). Compared with those without cancer, higher in-hospital mortality was found in admissions with active cancer (45.9% vs 37.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.24-1.34]; P &lt; .001) but not historical cancer (40.1% vs 37.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.98-1.04]; P = .39). AMI-CS admissions with cancer had a shorter hospitalization duration and lower costs (all P &lt; .001).

CONCLUSION

Concomitant cancer was associated with less use of guideline-directed procedures. Active, but not historical, cancer was associated with higher mortality in patients with AMI-CS.

Post-Cardiac Arrest PCI is Underutilized Among Cancer Patients: Machine Learning Augmented Nationally Representative Case-Control Study of 30 Million Hospitalizations

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients are less likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after cardiac arrest, although they demonstrate improved mortality benefit from the procedure. We produced the largest nationally representative analysis of mortality of cardiac arrest and PCI for patients with cancer versus non-cancer.

METHODS

Propensity score adjusted multivariable regression for mortality was performed in this case-control study of the United States' largest all-payer hospitalized dataset, the 2016 National Inpatient Sample. Regression models of mortality and PCI weighted by the complex survey design were fully adjusted for age, race, income, cancer metastases, NIS-calculated mortality risk by Diagnosis Related Group (DRG), acute coronary syndrome, and likelihood of undergoing PCI RESULTS: Of the 30,195,722 hospitalized adult patients, 15.43% had cancer, and 0.79% of the whole sample presented with cardiac arrest (of whom 20.57% underwent PCI). In fully adjusted regression analysis among patients with cardiac arrest, PCI significantly reduced mortality (OR 0.15, 95%CI 0.13-0.19; p<0.001) among patients with cancer greater than those without it (OR 0.21, 95%CI 0.20-0.23; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This nationally representative study suggests that post-cardiac arrest PCI is underutilized among patients with cancer despite its significant mortality reduction for such patients (independent of clinical acuity).

EHA Guidelines on Management of Antithrombotic Treatments in Thrombocytopenic Patients With Cancer

In cancer patients, thrombocytopenia can result from bone marrow infiltration or from anticancer medications and represents an important limitation for the use of antithrombotic treatments, including anticoagulant, antiplatelet, and fibrinolytic agents. These drugs are often required for prevention or treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis or for cardioembolic prevention in atrial fibrillation in an increasingly older cancer population. Data indicate that cancer remains an independent risk factor for thrombosis even in case of thrombocytopenia, since mild-to-moderate thrombocytopenia does not protect against arterial or venous thrombosis. In addition, cancer patients are at increased risk of antithrombotic drug-associated bleeding, further complicated by thrombocytopenia and acquired hemostatic defects. Furthermore, some anticancer treatments are associated with increased thrombotic risk and may generate interactions affecting the effectiveness or safety of antithrombotic drugs. In this complex scenario, the European Hematology Association in collaboration with the European Society of Cardiology has produced this scientific document to provide a clinical practice guideline to help clinicians in the management of patients with cancer and thrombocytopenia. The Guidelines focus on adult patients with active cancer and a clear indication for anticoagulation, single or dual antiplatelet therapy, their combination, or reperfusion therapy, who have concurrent thrombocytopenia because of either malignancy or anticancer medications. The level of evidence and the strength of the recommendations were discussed according to a Delphi procedure and graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

Reclassification of Treatment Strategy with Fractional Flow Reserve in Cancer Patients with Coronary Artery Disease

Background and Objectives: Cancer and coronary artery disease (CAD) often coexist. Compared to quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), fractional flow reserve (FFR) has emerged as a more reliable method of identifying significant coronary stenoses. We aimed to assess the specific management, safety and outcomes of FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in cancer patients with stable CAD. Materials and Methods: FFR was used to assess cancer patients that underwent coronary angiography for stable CAD between September 2008 and May 2016, and were found to have ≥50% stenosis by QCA. Patients with lesions with an FFR > 0.75 received medical therapy alone, while those with FFR ≤ 0.75 were revascularized. Procedure-related complications, all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularizations were analyzed. Results: Fifty-seven patients with stable CAD underwent FFR on 57 lesions. Out of 31 patients with ≥70% stenosis as measured by QCA, 14 (45.1%) had an FFR ≥ 0.75 and lesions were reclassified as moderate and did not receive PCI nor DAPT. Out of 26 patients with <70% stenosis as measured by QCA, 6 (23%) had an FFR < 0.75 and were reclassified as severe and were treated with PCI and associated DAPT. No periprocedural complications, urgent revascularization, acute coronary syndromes, or cardiovascular deaths were noted. There was a 22.8% mortality at 1 year, all cancer related. Patients who received a stent by FFR assessment showed a significant association with decreased risk of all-cause death (HR: 0.37, 95% CI 0.15−0.90, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Further studies are needed to define the optimal therapeutic approach for cancer patients with CAD. Using an FFR cut-off point of 0.75 to guide PCI translates into fewer interventions and can facilitate cancer care. There was an overall reduction in mortality in patients that received a stent, suggesting increased resilience to cancer therapy and progression.

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.

Comorbidities and clinical complications associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an overview

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes major challenges to the healthcare system. SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to millions of deaths worldwide and the mortality rate is found to be greatly associated with pre-existing clinical conditions. The existing dataset strongly suggests that cardiometabolic diseases including hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes and obesity serve as strong comorbidities in coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Studies have also shown the poor outcome of COVID-19 in patients associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 polymorphism, cancer chemotherapy, chronic kidney disease, thyroid disorder, or coagulation dysfunction. A severe complication of COVID-19 is mostly seen in people with compromised medical history. SARS-CoV-2 appears to attack the respiratory system causing pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, which lead to induction of severe systemic inflammation, multi-organ dysfunction, and death mostly in the patients who are associated with pre-existing comorbidity factors. In this article, we highlighted the key comorbidities and a variety of clinical complications associated with COVID-19 for a better understanding of the etiopathogenesis of COVID-19.

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.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Gynecological Cancer: Machine Learning-Augmented Propensity Score Mortality and Cost Analysis for 383,760 Patients

Background

Despite the growing number of patients with both coronary artery disease and gynecological cancer, there are no nationally representative studies of mortality and cost effectiveness for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and this cancer type.

Methods

Backward propagation neural network machine learning supported and propensity score adjusted multivariable regression was conducted for the above outcomes in this case-control study of the 2016 National Inpatient Sample (NIS), the United States' largest all-payer hospitalized dataset. Regression models were fully adjusted for age, race, income, geographic region, cancer metastases, mortality risk, and the likelihood of undergoing PCI (and also with length of stay [LOS] for cost). Analyses were also adjusted for the complex survey design to produce nationally representative estimates. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-based cost effectiveness ratio (CER) analysis was performed.

Results

Of the 30,195,722 hospitalized patients meeting criteria, 1.27% had gynecological cancer of whom 0.02% underwent PCI including 0.04% with metastases. In propensity score adjusted regression among all patients, the interaction of PCI and gynecological cancer (vs. not having PCI) significantly reduced mortality (OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.36–0.77; p = 0.001) while increasing LOS (Beta 1.16 days, 95%CI 0.57–1.75; p &lt; 0.001) and total cost (Beta $31,035.46, 95%CI 26758.86–35312.06; p &lt; 0.001). Among gynecological cancer patients, mortality was significantly reduced by PCI (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.39–0.85; p = 0.006) and being in East North Central, West North Central, South Atlantic, and Mountain regions (all p &lt; 0.03) compared to New England. PCI reduced mortality but not significantly for metastatic patients (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.32–1.71; p = 0.481). Eighteen extra gynecological cancer patients' lives were saved with PCI for a net national cost of $3.18 billion and a CER of $176.50 million per averted death.

Conclusion

This large propensity score analysis suggests that PCI may cost inefficiently reduce mortality for gynecological cancer patients, amid income and geographic disparities in outcomes.

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.

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.

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.

Challenges and Advances in Managing Thrombocytopenic Cancer Patients

Cancer patients have varying incidence, depth and duration of thrombocytopenia. The mainstay of managing severe chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT) in cancer is the use of platelet transfusions. While prophylactic platelet transfusions reduce the bleeding rate, multiple unmet needs remain, such as high residual rates of bleeding, and anticancer treatment dose reductions/delays. Accordingly, the following promising results in other settings, antifibrinolytic drugs have been evaluated for prevention and treatment of bleeding in patients with hematological malignancies and solid tumors. In addition, Thrombopoeitin receptor agonists have been studied for two major implications in cancer: treatment of severe thrombocytopenia associated with myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia; primary and secondary prevention of CIT in solid tumors in order to maintain dose density and intensity of anti-cancer treatment. Furthermore, thrombocytopenic cancer patients are often prescribed antithrombotic medication for indications arising prior or post cancer diagnosis. Balancing the bleeding and thrombotic risks in such patients represents a unique clinical challenge. This review focuses upon non-transfusion-based approaches to managing thrombocytopenia and the associated bleeding risk in cancer, and also addresses the management of antithrombotic therapy in thrombocytopenic cancer patients.

Impact of Thrombocytopenia on In-Hospital Outcome in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background

Thrombocytopenia was intuitively considered to be associated with higher risk of bleeding and multiple comorbidities after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, controversial results exist, and the real-world clinical impact of thrombocytopenia in patients undergoing PCI is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of baseline thrombocytopenia on the prognosis of patients undergoing PCI.

Methods

Using the West China Hospital Inpatient Sample database, patients who underwent PCI were identified from August 2012 to January 2019. Baseline thrombocytopenia was defined as a preprocedural platelet count of 100 × 10⁹/L or less obtained from a routine blood sample taken within 48 hours before coronary PCI. The clinical effect of the advanced thrombocytopenia group (≤85 × 10⁹/L), according to the median value of platelet count in the thrombocytopenia cohort, was further assessed. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, bleeding events, and post-PCI transfusion.

Results

Of 9531 patients enrolled in our study, 936 had baseline thrombocytopenia and 8595 patients did not have. There were no significant differences in the primary outcome between the two groups. However, advanced thrombocytopenia was independently associated with higher risk of primary outcome (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.65, p = 0.029). Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with thrombocytopenia were associated with higher odds of major bleeding (BARC ≥ 2) (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.44, p = 0.011). Compared with the nonthrombocytopenia group, the thrombocytopenia group with ticagrelor use had higher odds of major bleeding (OR 9.7, 95% CI 1.57 to 60.4 versus OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.69, interaction p = 0.025).

Conclusions

It seems feasible for patients with thrombocytopenia to receive PCI, but close attention should be paid to advanced thrombocytopenia, the risk of postprocedure bleeding in ACS patients, and the use of more potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor.

COVID-19 and Cardiovascular Health Among Patients with Cancer

Purpose of review

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), continues to spread with rising new cases and deaths. Patients with cancer represent a uniquely vulnerable population not only with higher susceptibility to COVID-19 but also at increased risk for its complications. This review focuses on the implications of COVID-19 in the cardiovascular health of patients with cancer.

Recent findings

Patients more susceptible to COVID-19 with increased severity of disease include those with cancer and cardiovascular comorbidities. In addition, the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 including acute myocardial injury, thromboembolism, cardiomyopathy, myocarditis, and pericardial disease overlap with many of those encountered during cancer treatment.

Summary

Despite the absence of large studies of patients with both cancer and cardiovascular disease, the incidence of cardiovascular complications in cancer patients with COVID-19 is expected to be high. This has implications for cardiac monitoring, chemotherapy administration, and the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease during COVID-19.

Transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement impact on outcomes and cancer treatment schedule

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggest that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) is viable in cancer patients. TAVR may be preferred in cancer patients due to its minimally invasive nature and smaller impact on oncologic therapies compared to SAVR. Objectives We sought to determine if TAVR is an acceptable alternative to SAVR in cancer patients and whether TAVR allows for earlier initiation or resumption of anti-cancer therapies.

METHODS

Cancer patients in a tertiary cancer center diagnosed with severe AS were retrospectively included. Patients accepted by the heart team underwent either TAVR or SAVR, while remaining patients received medical therapy alone. Time intervals to initiation of cancer treatment and the impact of cancer treatment on the replaced valves were recorded. Logistic regression was performed to determine the impact of treatment strategy on overall survival (OS) in all 3 subgroups.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-seven cancer patients diagnosed with severe AS were identified. AVR was associated with better OS compared to medical therapy alone (p < 0.0001). TAVR was associated with better OS at 72 months (HR = 0.468, p < 0.001) compared to medical therapy alone, with no difference in OS observed between SAVR and TAVR. Time intervals to initiation of cancer treatments were shorter in the TAVR group, with no valve deterioration or infection observed in all groups.

CONCLUSION

Cancer patients with severe AS benefit from AVR. TAVR is a viable alternative to SAVR in high-risk cancer patients to prolong survival and allow for earlier administration or resumption of anti-neoplastic therapies.

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

Aims

The aim of this study is to evaluate temporal trends, treatment, and clinical outcomes of patients who present with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and have a current or historical diagnosis of cancer, according to cancer type and presence of metastases.

Methods and results

Data from 6 563 255 patients presenting with an AMI between 2004 and 2014 from the US National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database were analysed. A total of 5 966 955 had no cancer, 186 604 had current cancer, and 409 697 had a historical diagnosis of cancer. Prostate, breast, colon, and lung cancer were the four most common types of cancer. Patients with cancer were older with more comorbidities. Differences in invasive treatment were noted, 43.9% received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients without cancer, whilst only 21.0% of patients with lung cancer received PCI. Lung cancer was associated with the highest in-hospital mortality [odds ratio (OR) 2.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.62–2.80], major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complications (OR 2.38, 95% CI 2.31–2.45), and stroke (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.80–2.02), while colon cancer was associated with highest risk of bleeding (OR 2.82, 95% CI 2.68–2.98). Irrespective of the type of cancer, presence of metastasis was associated with worse in-hospital outcomes, and historical cancer did not adversely impact on survival (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.89–0.91).

Conclusion

A concomitant cancer diagnosis is associated with a conservative medical management strategy for AMI, and worse clinical outcomes, compared to patients without cancer. Survival and clinical outcomes in the context of AMI vary significantly according to the type of cancer and metastasis status. The management of this high-risk group is challenging and requires a multidisciplinary and patient-centred approach to improve their outcomes.

Management strategies and clinical outcomes of acute myocardial infarction in leukaemia patients: Nationwide insights from United States hospitalisations

BACKGROUND

Patients with leukaemia are at increased risk of cardiovascular events. There are limited outcomes data for patients with a history of leukaemia who present with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

METHODS

We queried the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2004-2014) for patients with a primary discharge diagnosis of AMI, and a concomitant diagnosis of leukaemia, and further stratified according to the subtype of leukaemia. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify the association between leukaemia and major acute cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; composite of mortality, stroke and cardiac complications) and bleeding.

RESULTS

Out of 6 750 878 AMI admissions, a total of 21 694 patients had a leukaemia diagnosis. The leukaemia group experienced higher rates of MACCE (11.8% vs 7.8%), mortality (10.3% vs 5.8%) and bleeding (5.6% vs 5.3%). Following adjustments, leukaemia was independently associated with increased odds of MACCE (OR 1.26 [1.20, 1.31]) and mortality (OR 1.43 [1.37, 1.50]) without an increased risk of bleeding (OR 0.86 [0.81, 0.92]). Acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) was associated with approximately threefold risk of MACCE (OR 2.81 [2.51, 3.13]) and a fourfold risk of mortality (OR 3.75 [3.34, 4.22]). Patients with leukaemia were less likely to undergo coronary angiography (CA) (48.5% vs 64.5%) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (28.2% vs 42.9%) compared with those without leukaemia.

CONCLUSION

Patients with leukaemia, especially those with AML, are associated with poor clinical outcomes after AMI, and are less likely to receive CA and PCI compared with those without leukaemia. A multi-disciplinary approach between cardiologists and haematology oncologists may improve the outcomes of patients with leukaemia after AMI.

Acute myocardial infarction in a high-risk cancer population: Outcomes following conservative versus invasive management

BACKGROUND

The benefits of invasive versus noninvasive management in oncology patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are unclear. We aimed to retrospectively determine outcome differences between conservative and invasive management of AMI in cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients from our institution between March 2016 and December 2018 with type 1 and type 2 AMI (excluding STEMI) were classified into 2 groups: medical therapy only and invasive strategies. Analyzed outcomes were overall survival (OS), procedural complications, subsequent events, and hospice referral. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to compare OS between subgroups. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were conducted to find factors associated with OS.

RESULTS

We included 201 patients. Type 1 MI was seen in 152 patients (76%) and type 2 MI in 49 (24%). Median OS was 13 months. Most presented with symptoms other than dyspnea or chest pain (49%) and with ECG revealing changes other than ST-segment depression and T-wave inversion (62%). Patients with type 2 MI had worse OS than patients with type 1 MI (HR = 2.3, p = 0.0002). Early coronary angiography (≤72 h; HR = 0.327, p < 0.0001), late coronary angiography (>72 h; HR = 0.496, p = 0.0426), and percutaneous coronary intervention (HR = 0.481, p = 0.0116) were associated with better OS than noninvasive approaches. Single and dual agent antiplatelet therapy, beta blockers, and statins were each associated with better OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients without STEMI who underwent invasive treatment for AMI had better OS compared with those treated only medically, with the highest benefit when coronary angiography was performed within 72 h of admission for AMI.

Cardiac Interventional Procedures in Cardio-Oncology Patients

Comorbidities specific to the cardio-oncology population contribute to the challenges in the interventional management of patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Patients with cancer have generally been excluded from cardiovascular randomized clinical trials. Endovascular procedures may represent a valid option in patients with cancer with a range of CVDs because of their minimally invasive nature. Patients with cancer are less likely to be treated according to societal guidelines because of perceived high risk. This article presents the specific challenges that interventional cardiologists face when caring for patients with cancer and the modern tools to optimize care.

Identifying Hemostatic Thresholds in Cancer Patients Undergoing Coronary Angiography Based on Platelet Count and Thromboelastography

Objectives: To evaluate the role of platelet count and thromboelastogram (TEG) in the treatment of thrombocytopenic cancer patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD).

Background: Cancer patients with CAD and thrombocytopenia are often treated non-invasively (i.e., without coronary angiography when clinically indicated) due to perceived high risk of bleeding. We sought to evaluate coagulability based on TEG and determine if platelet count and TEG could predict bleeding risk/mortality among cancer patients undergoing coronary angiography (CA).

Methods: Baseline demographics, platelet count, and TEG parameters were recorded among cancer patients that underwent CA and had a concomitant TEG. Logistic regression and univariate proportional hazards regression analysis were performed to determine the impact of platelet count and coagulability on 24-month overall survival (OS).

Results: All patients with platelet count <20,000/mm³ and nearly all patients with platelet count 20,000–49,000/mm³ were hypocoagulable based on TEG results. In contrast, nearly all patients with platelet counts of 50,000–99,999/mm³ had normal TEG results and OS similar to those with platelet counts of ≥100,000/mm³. Coagulability based on TEG was not associated with OS. However, a platelet count of <50,000/mm³ was associated with worse 24-month OS (hazard ratio = 2.76; p = 0.0072) when compared with a platelet count of ≥100,000/mm³. No major bleeding complications were observed in all groups.

Conclusion: The majority of cancer patients with platelet counts of <50,000/mm³ were hypocoagulable based on TEG and had worse OS at 24 months. The relatively normal TEGs in the >50,000/mm³ groups, as well as the improved survival, suggest that with appropriate clinical indication and risk/benefit assessment, a cut-off of 50,000/mm³ platelets can be considered for CA in cancer patients.

Outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions in cancer patients

Introduction: There are numerous shared risk factors in the etiopathogenesis of coronary artery disease (CAD) and cancer both at epidemiologic and molecular level. Additionally, different modalities of treatment of cancer such as radiation, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and hormonal therapies further increase the risk of CAD and acute coronary syndrome. Most large database analysis and single-center experiences have shown that cancer patients undergoing PCI are at an increased risk of in-hospital mortality, bleeding, repeat revascularization.Areas covered: In this review article the authors discuss the associations between CAD and cancer, challenges for PCI in cancer patients and outcome data.Expert opinion: Interventionists performing PCI on cancer patients should be cognizant of the heightened risk of bleeding, thrombosis, possible need for interruption of dual-antiplatelet therapy, and the increased risk of target lesion revascularization in this cohort. These risks may be partially mitigated by utilization of best practices such as the use of radial artery access, intravascular imaging for lesion assessment and stent optimization and avoidance of complex stenting strategies. Finally, it is of paramount importance to have a multidisciplinary approach consisting of the treating cardiologist, medical and/or surgical oncologist, and palliative medicine, and involve the patient and their family in making informed decisions.

Contemporary impacts of a cancer diagnosis on survival following in-hospital cardiac arrest

AIM

The objective of this study was to determine whether survival and post-arrest procedural utilization following in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) differ in patients with and without comorbid cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all adult (age ≥18 years old) hospital admissions complicated by IHCA from 2003 to 2014 using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) dataset. Utilizing propensity score matching using age, gender, race, insurance, all hospital level variables, HCUP mortality score, diabetes, hypertension and cardiopulmonary resuscitation use, rates of survival to hospital discharge and post-arrest procedural utilization were compared.

RESULTS

From 2003 to 2014, there were a total of 1,893,768 hospitalizations complicated by IHCA, of which 112,926 occurred in patients with history of cancer. In a propensity matched cohort from 2012 to 2014, those with cancer were less likely to survive the hospitalization (31% vs. 46%, p < 0.0001). Following an IHCA, rates of procedural utilization in patients with cancer were significantly less when compared to those without a concurrent malignancy: coronary angiography (4.0% vs. 13.0%), percutaneous coronary intervention (2.2% and 8.0%), targeted temperature management (0.8% vs. 6.0%); p < 0.0001 for all comparisons. This patient population was less likely to have acute coronary syndrome (12.6% vs. 27.0%) or congestive heart failure (24.5% vs. 38.2%); p < 0.0001 for both comparisons. Survival improved in both groups over the study period (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a history of cancer who sustain IHCA are less likely to receive post-arrest procedures and survive to hospital discharge. Given the expected rise in the rates of cancer survivorship, these findings highlight the need for broader application of potentially life-saving interventions to lower risk cancer patients who have sustained a cardiac arrest.