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

In-hospital and readmission outcomes of patients with cancer admitted for pulmonary embolism treated with or without catheter-based therapy

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients are at risk of pulmonary embolism (PE). Catheter-based therapies (CBT) are novel reperfusion options for PE though data in patients with cancer is lacking.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients with intermediate- or high-risk PE were identified using the National Readmission Database (NRD) from 2017 to 2020. Primary outcome were in-hospital death and 90-day readmission. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital bleeding, 90-day readmission for venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related or right heart failure-related reasons and bleeding. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression and inverse-probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was utilized to compare outcomes between CBT and no CBT as well as CBT versus systemic thrombolysis.

RESULTS

A total of 7785 patients were included (2511 with high-risk PE) of whom 1045 (13.4%) were managed with CBT. After IPTW, CBT was associated with lower rates of index hospitalization death (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83-0.96) and 90-day readmission (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.69-0.81) but higher rates of in-hospital bleeding (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.20) which was predominantly post-procedural bleeding. CBT was associated with lower risk of major bleeding (20.8% vs 24.8%; OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.94) compared with systemic thrombolysis.

INTERPRETATION

Among patients with cancer with intermediate or high-risk PE, CBT was associated with lower in-hospital death and 90-day readmission. CBT was also associated with decreased risk of index hospitalization major bleeding compared with systemic thrombolysis. Prospective, randomized trials with inclusion of patients with cancer are needed to confirm these findings.

Cancer and arterial thrombosis: therapeutic options

A State of the Art lecture titled "Cancer and Arterial Thrombosis: Therapeutic Options" was presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress in 2023. This State of the Art review delves into the complex relationship between cancer and arterial thromboembolism (ATE), encompassing acute coronary syndrome, ischemic strokes, and peripheral arterial disease. The burden of cancer-associated ATE is not well defined, but studies indicate elevated risks, particularly in the 6 months after a cancer diagnosis. Incidence varies among cancer subtypes, with lung cancer displaying the highest rates. Additionally, the pathophysiology of cancer-associated ATE involves a multifaceted interplay of cancer-induced hypercoagulopathy, cancer therapy-related thrombosis, and personal risk factor contributors. ATEs are clinically heterogeneous and in the context of cancer have particular mechanistic differences compared with ATE patients without cancer. This requires modifications in approach and tailored management considerations. Specific etiologies contributing to ATE, such as coronary vasospasm and non-bacterial-thrombotic endocarditis, need to be considered. The diagnosis of cancer alone usually does not contraindicate patients to standard guideline-based therapies for the management of ATE, although nuances in treatment may need to be considered in light of the underlying cancer. Atrial fibrillation in cancer patients further complicates the thrombotic landscape. Cancer patients with atrial fibrillation are at a higher risk of ATE, necessitating careful consideration of anticoagulation therapy as clinical benefits and bleeding risks need to be weighed. ATE may also be a presenting sign of underlying malignancy, which requires increased awareness and focused clinical evaluation for cancer in selected cases. Finally, we summarize relevant new data on this topic presented during the 2023 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress.

Catheter-based therapy for intermediate or high-risk pulmonary embolism is associated with lower in-hospital mortality in patients with cancer: Insights from the National Inpatient Sample

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common complication among patients with cancer and is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality. Catheter-based therapies (CBT), including catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and mechanical thrombectomy, have been developed and are used in patients with intermediate or high-risk PE. However, there is a paucity of data on outcomes in patients with cancer as most clinical studies exclude this group of patients.

AIMS

To characterize outcomes of patients with cancer admitted with intermediate or high-risk PE treated with CBT compared with no CBT.

METHODS

Patients with an admission diagnosis of intermediate or high-risk PE and a history of cancer from October 2015 to December 2018 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample. Outcomes of interest were in-hospital death or cardiac arrest (CA) and major bleeding. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was utilized to compare outcomes between patients treated with and without CBT. Variables that remained unbalanced after IPTW were adjusted using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 2084 unweighted admissions (10,420 weighted) for intermediate or high-risk PE and cancer were included, of which 136 (6.5%) were treated with CBT. After IPTW, CBT was associated with lower death or CA (aOR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46-0.64) but higher major bleeding (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.21-1.65). After stratifying by PE risk type, patients treated with CBT had lower risk of death or CA in both intermediate (aOR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36-0.75) and high-risk PE (aOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.53). However, patients with CBT were associated with increased risk of major bleeding in intermediate-risk PE (aOR 2.12, 95% CI 1.67-2.69) but not in those with high-risk PE (aOR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66-1.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with cancer hospitalized with intermediate or high-risk PE, treatment with CBT was associated with lower risk of in-hospital death or CA but higher risk of bleeding. Prospective studies and inclusion of patients with cancer in randomized trials are warranted to confirm our findings.

Prevalence and outcomes of type 2 myocardial infarction in patients with cancer: A retrospective analysis from the National Inpatient Sample dataset

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the prevalence, clinical characteristics and outcomes of type 2 myocardial infarction (T2AMI) in patients with versus without cancer.

METHODS

All hospitalizations with a primary discharge diagnosis of T2AMI were stratified according to cancer status (secondary diagnosis of any-cancer vs cancer-free) using data from the US National Inpatient Sample (2016-2019). The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality while secondary outcomes were in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

RESULTS

Among 61,305 included hospitalizations with primary diagnosis of T2AMI, 3745 (6.1%) were associated with a diagnosis of cancer. Patients with T2AMI and cancer presented more frequently with acute respiratory failure (23.2% vs 18.1%), acute pulmonary embolism (3.7% v 1.3%), major bleeding (6.8% vs 4.1%) and renal failure (51.0% vs 46.8%), compared to patients without. On adjusted analysis, diagnosis of cancer was associated with lower odds of invasive coronary angiography (aOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.93, p = 0.009) but greater odds of mortality (aOR 1.95, 95% C.I. 1.26-2.99 p = 0.002). Among the different types of cancer, adjusted risk of all-cause mortality was higher in patients with colorectal (aOR 4.17 95% CI 1.68-10.32, p = 0.002), lung (aOR 3.63, 95% CI 1.83-7.18, p < 0.001) and haematologic (aOR 2.48, 95% CI 1.22-5.05, p = 0.001) cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with cancer presenting with T2AMI have lower odds of management with invasive diagnostic coronary angiography and have higher rates of in-hospital all-cause death. Further studies are warranted to improve overall care and outcomes of cancer patients and cardiovascular diseases.

Chest Pain in Cancer Patients: Prevalence of Myocardial Infarction and Performance of High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponins

Background

Little is known about patients with cancer presenting with acute chest discomfort to the emergency department (ED).

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), outcomes, and the diagnostic utility of recommended diagnostic tools in this population.

Methods

Patients presenting with chest pain to the ED were prospectively enrolled in an international multicenter diagnostic study with central adjudication. Cancer status was assessed prospectively and additional cancer details retrospectively. Findings were externally validated in an independent multicenter cohort.

Results

Among 8,267 patients, 711 (8.6%) had cancer. Patients with cancer had a higher burden of cardiovascular risk factors and pre-existing cardiac disease. Total length of stay in the ED (5.2 hours vs 4.3 hours) and hospitalization rate (49.8% vs 34.3%) were both increased in patients with cancer (P < 0.001 for both). Among 8,093 patients eligible for the AMI analyses, those with cancer more often had final diagnoses of AMI (184 of 686 with cancer [26.8%] vs 1,561 of 7,407 without cancer [21.1%]; P < 0.001). In patients with cancer, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) but not high sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) concentration had lower diagnostic accuracy for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (for hs-cTnT, area under the curve: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.86-0.92] vs 0.94 [95% CI: 0.93-0.94] [P < 0.001]; for hs-cTnI, area under the curve: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.91-0.95] vs 0.95 [95% CI: 0.94-0.95] [P = 0.10]). In patients with cancer, the European Society of Cardiology 0/1-hour hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI algorithms maintained very high safety but had lower efficacy, with twice the number of patients remaining in the observe zone. Similar findings were obtained in the external validation cohort.

Conclusions

Patients with cancer have a substantially higher prevalence of AMI as the cause of chest pain. Length of ED stay and hospitalization rates are increased. The diagnostic performance of hs-cTnT and the efficacy of both the European Society of Cardiology 0/1-hour hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI algorithms is reduced. (Advantageous Predictors of Acute Coronary Syndromes Evaluation [APACE] Study; NCT00470587).

Cancer and Myocardial Infarction in Women

Women who present with myocardial infarction (MI) are more likely to be diagnosed with nonobstructive coronary arteries (MINOCAs), spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD), and takotsubo syndrome (TS) than men. Malignancy may predispose to MI and TS through shared risk factors and inflammatory mediators. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of cancer in women presenting with clinical syndrome of MI and the association between cancer and mechanism of MI presentation. Among 520 women with MI who underwent coronary angiography at NYU Langone Health from March 2016 to March 2020 or September 2020 to September 2021, 122 (23%) had a previous diagnosis of cancer. Patients with cancer were older at MI presentation but had similar co-morbidity to those without a cancer history. The most common cancers were breast (39%), gynecologic (15%), and gastrointestinal (13%). Women with cancer history were more likely to have TS (17% vs 11% without cancer history p = 0.049). Among women with a final diagnosis of MI, the type of MI (MINOCA, MI-coronary artery disease, or SCAD) was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.374). History of cancer was present in nearly a quarter of women presenting with MI and was associated with a greater likelihood of TS than MI. MINOCA and SCAD were not more common among women with a cancer history.

Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Cancer

Purpose of review

The treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) in cancer patients is an evolving landscape. Recent data emphasizes the importance of aggressive management of cardiovascular risk factors and diseases in improving cardiovascular health in this unique group of patients regardless of cancer type or stage.

Recent findings

Novel cancer therapeutics such as immune therapies and proteasome inhibitors have been associated with CAD. Recent stent technologies may safely allow for shorter duration (< 6 months) of dual antiplatelet therapy post-percutaneous coronary interventions. Intracoronary imaging may be useful in the decision making process in terms of stent positioning and healing.

Summary

Large registry studies have partially filled a gap left by the lack of randomized controlled trials in the treatment of CAD in cancer patients. Cardio-oncology is gaining traction as a major sub-specialty in the cardiology field given the release of the first European Society of Cardiology - Cardio-oncology guidelines in 2022.

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 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.

Diagnostic features, management and prognosis of type 2 myocardial infarction compared to type 1 myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Distinguishing type 2 (T2MI) from type 1 myocardial infarction (T1MI) in clinical practice can be difficult, and the management and prognosis for T2MI remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To compare precipitating factors, risk factors, investigations, management and outcomes for T2MI and T1MI.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and Embase databases as well as reference list of recent articles were searched January 2009 to December 2020 for term 'type 2 myocardial infarction'.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were included if they used a universal definition of MI and reported quantitative data on at least one variable of interest.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were pooled using random-effect meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment tool. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were followed. All review stages were conducted by two reviewers.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Risk factors, presenting symptoms, cardiac investigations such as troponin and angiogram, management and outcomes such as mortality.

RESULTS

40 cohort studies comprising 98 930 patients with T1MI and 13 803 patients with T2MI were included. Compared with T1MI, patients with T2MI were: more likely to have pre-existing chronic kidney disease (OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.53 to 2.28) and chronic heart failure (OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.82 to 3.03), less likely to present with typical cardiac symptoms of chest pain (OR 0.19; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.26) and more likely to present with dyspnoea (OR 2.64; 95% CI 1.86 to 3.74); more likely to demonstrate non-specific ST-T wave changes on ECG (OR 2.62; 95% CI 1.81 to 3.79) and less likely to show ST elevation (OR 0.22; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.28); less likely to undergo coronary angiography (OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.12) and percutaneous coronary intervention (OR 0.06; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.10) or receive cardioprotective medications, such as statins (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.38) and beta-blockers (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.63). T2MI had greater risk of all cause 1-year mortality (OR 3.11; 95% CI 1.91 to 5.08), with no differences in short-term mortality (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.63 to 2.85).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

This review has identified clinical, management and survival differences between T2MI and T1MI with greater precision and scope than previously reported. Differential use of coronary revascularisation and cardioprotective medications highlight ongoing uncertainty of their utility in T2MI compared with T1MI.

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.

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.

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.

Cardio-Oncology in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged as a global pandemic and public health crisis. Increasing waves of intermittent infectious outbreaks have dramatically influenced care among broad populations. Over the past 2 decades, there has been a rapid increase in cancer survival, with >400 000 new survivors each year. The increasingly common presence of cardiovascular disease in patients during or after cancer treatment led to the rapid growth of the field of cardio-oncology with a mandate of identifying, treating, and preventing the various forms of cardiovascular disease seen among this population. This review evaluates the implications of the pandemic on the practice and study of cardio-oncology. The evolving understanding of the relationship between comorbid disease and clinical outcomes among this population is assessed. With the impetus of the pandemic, cardio-oncology can be deliberate in embracing changes to cardiac screening, monitoring, and intervention during oncology care. Bridging 2 specialties, consideration of the lessons learned in cancer and cardiovascular may pivotally inform ongoing therapeutic efforts. Further, the development of multicenter registries focused on understanding and optimizing outcomes among these patients should be considered. Together, these insights may critically inform strategies for the care of cardio-oncology patients in future phases of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.