Outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cancer

[Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in High-Risk Patients]

Ischemic heart disease (IHD) with severe coronary artery disease (SYNTAX score >22 points) in combination with various comorbidities is often a reason for refusal of coronary artery bypass grafting in such patients. Thus, a new term has emerged, "high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention"; however, the criteria, indications and results of these interventions have not yet been sufficiently studied. Therefore, according to current clinical guidelines, the treatment tactics for this patient cohort is determined by the decision of a council, the so-called Heart Team. This analytical review summarizes the criteria for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions based on the literature, and describes the effect of various comorbidities on the results of direct myocardial revascularization.

Transurethral prostate surgery in prostate cancer patients: A population-based comparative analysis of complication and mortality rates

Objective

Prostate cancer (PCa) patients might experience lower urinary tract symptoms as those diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Some of them might be treated for their lower urinary tract symptoms instead of PCa. We aimed to test the effect of PCa versus BPH on surgical outcomes after transurethral prostate surgery, namely complication and mortality rates.

Methods

Within the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2011-2016), we identified patients who underwent transurethral resection of the prostate, photoselective vaporization, or laser enucleation. Patients were stratified according to postoperative diagnosis (PCa vs. BPH). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models evaluated the predictors of perioperative morbidity and mortality. A formal test of interaction between diagnosis and surgical technique used was performed.

Results

Overall, 34 542 patients were included. Of all, 2008 (5.8%) had a diagnosis of PCa. The multivariable logistic regression model failed to show statistically significant higher rates of postoperative complications in PCa patients (odds ratio: 0.9, 95% confidence interval: 0.7-1.1; p=0.252). Moreover, similar rates of perioperative mortality (p=0.255), major acute cardiovascular events (p=0.581), transfusions (p=0.933), and length of stay of more than or equal to 30 days (p=0.174) were found. Additionally, all tests failed to show an interaction between post-operative diagnosis and surgical technique used.

Conclusion

Patients diagnosed with PCa do not experience higher perioperative morbidity or mortality after transurethral prostate surgery when compared to their BPH counterparts. Moreover, the diagnosis seems to not influence surgical technique outcomes.

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.

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.

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.

Cancer-Associated Atherothrombosis: The Challenge

The association between venous thrombosis and malignancy, having typical features of a paraneoplastic syndrome, has been established for a century. Currently, it is recognized that arterial thromboembolism (ATE) may also behave as a paraneoplastic syndrome. Recent matched cohort studies, systematic reviews, and observational studies concur in showing an increased incidence of acute coronary events, ischemic stroke, accelerated peripheral arterial disease, and in-stent thrombosis during the 6-month period before cancer diagnosis, peaking for 30 days immediately before cancer diagnosis. Cancer patients with ATE are at higher risk of in-hospital and long-term mortality as compared with noncancer patients. In the present review, we focus on the epidemiology, clinical variants and presentation, morbidity, mortality, primary and secondary prevention, and treatment of cancer-associated ATE. The awareness that cancer can be a risk factor for ATE and that cancer therapy can initiate cardiovascular complications make it mandatory to identify high-risk patients, modify preexistent cardiovascular risk factors, and adopt effective antithrombotic prophylaxis. For ATE prophylaxis, modifiable patient-related risk factors and oncology treatment-related factors are levers for intervention. Statins and platelet antiaggregants have been studied, but their efficacy for prevention of cancer-associated ATE remains to be demonstrated. Results of revascularization procedures for cancer-associated ATE are worse than for ATE in noncancer patients. It is important that a multidisciplinary approach is adopted for making informed decisions, by involving the vascular surgeon, interventional radiologist, oncologist, and palliative medicine, as well as the patients and their family.

Coronary revascularisation outcomes in patients with cancer

Cancer and coronary artery disease (CAD) overlap in traditional risk factors as well as molecular mechanisms underpinning the development of these two disease states. Patients with cancer are at increased risk of developing CAD, representing a high-risk population that are increasingly undergoing coronary revascularisation. Over 1 in 10 patients with CAD that require revascularisation with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting have either a history of cancer or active cancer. These patients are typically older, have more comorbidities and have more extensive CAD compared with patients without cancer. Haematological abnormalities with competing risks of thrombosis and bleeding pose further unique challenges during and after revascularisation. Management of patients with concurrent cancer and CAD requiring revascularisation is challenging as these patients carry a higher risk of morbidity and mortality compared with those without cancer, often driven by the underlying cancer and associated comorbidities. However, due to variability by different types and stages of cancer, revascularisation outcomes are specific to cancer characteristics such as the timing of onset, cancer subtype and site, stage, presence of metastases, and cancer-related therapies received. Recent studies have provided insights into defining revascularisation outcomes, procedural considerations and best practices in managing patients with cancer. Nevertheless, many gaps remain that require further studies to inform clinical best practices in this population.

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.

Cancer Patients Have a Higher Risk of Thrombotic and Ischemic Events After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to define the risk of stent thrombosis (ST) and myocardial infarction (MI) in cancer patients compared with noncancer patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients are considered to be at high thrombotic risk, but data on whether this is the case after PCI remain inconclusive.

METHODS

Cancer patients undergoing PCI at Mayo Clinic Rochester from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2013, were identified by cross-linking institutional cancer and PCI databases and by propensity score matching to noncancer patients. The combined primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, MI, and revascularization rate at 5-year follow-up. Secondary endpoints were the individual primary endpoint components, cause of mortality, ST, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2+ bleeding.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint occurred in 48.6% of 416 cancer and in 33.0% of 768 noncancer patients (p < 0.001). In competing risk analyses, cancer patients had a higher rate of noncardiac death (24.0% vs. 10.5%; p < 0.001) and a lower rate of cardiac death (5.0% vs. 11.7%; p < 0.001). Cancer patients had a higher rate of MI (16.1% vs. 8.0%; p < 0.001), ST (6.0% vs. 2.3%; p < 0.001), repeat revascularization (21.2% vs. 10.0%; p < 0.001), and bleeding (6.7% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.03). The most critical period for ST in cancer patients was in the first year after PCI. The dual antiplatelet therapy score was predictive of thrombotic and ischemic events in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients have a higher risk of thrombotic and ischemic events after PCI, identifiable by a high dual antiplatelet therapy score. These findings have important implications for antiplatelet therapy decisions.

Multicentre cohort study of the impact of percutaneous coronary intervention on patients with concurrent cancer and ischaemic heart disease

Background

The incidence of concurrent cancer and ischaemic heart disease (IHD) is increasing; however, the long-term patient prognoses remain unclear.

Methods

Five-year all-cause mortality data pertaining to patients in the Osaka Cancer Registry, who were diagnosed with colorectal, lung, prostate, and gastric cancers between 2010 and 2015, were retrieved and analysed together with linked patient administrative data. Patient characteristics (cancer type, stage, and treatment; coronary risk factors; medications; and time from cancer diagnosis to index admission for percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or IHD diagnosis) were adjusted for propensity score matching. Three groups were identified: patients who underwent PCI within 3 years of cancer diagnosis (n = 564, PCI + group), patients diagnosed with IHD within 3 years of cancer diagnosis who did not undergo PCI (n = 3058, PCI-/IHD + group), and patients without IHD (n = 27,392, PCI-/IHD- group). Kaplan–Meier analysis was used for comparisons.

Results

After propensity score matching, the PCI + group had better prognosis (n = 489 in both groups, hazard ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.51–0.81, P < 0.001) than the PCI-/IHD + group. PCI + patients (n = 282) had significantly higher mortality than those without IHD (n = 280 in each group, hazard ratio 2.88, 95% confidence interval 1.90–4.38, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

PCI might improve the long-term prognosis in cancer patients with IHD. However, these patients could have significantly worse long-term prognosis than cancer patients without IHD. Since the present study has some limitations, further research will be needed on this important topic in cardio-oncology.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-021-01968-w.

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.

Clinical outcome of cardiac surgery in patients with remitted or active hepatocellular carcinoma

PURPOSE

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common primary cancers worldwide. HCC has unique characteristics such as co-existing chronic liver damage and a high recurrence rate. A negative impact on the surgical outcome due to these backgrounds could be expected. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of cardiac surgery in these patients.

METHODS

Between January 2000 and December 2019, 16 patients with remitted cancer and 5 patients with active HCC who underwent open heart surgery were studied. The clinical data were retrospectively evaluated from hospital records. Follow-up information was collected via telephone interviews.

RESULTS

The major cause of HCC was viral hepatitis. Eighteen patients (86%) were classified as having Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis. The mean model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was 7.2 ± 5.2. There was no 30-day mortality. During follow-up, 11 patients died due to HCC. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 80.0, 42.5, and 22.3%, respectively. A univariate analysis identified a higher preoperative MELD score and lower serum cholinesterase levels as prognostic factors for long-term survival.

CONCLUSION

We could safely perform cardiac surgery in selected patients with remitted and active HCC. The postoperative life expectancy of these patients was limited but acceptable.