Transcatheter aortic valve replacement after chest radiation: A propensity-matched analysis

Outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in cancer survivors with prior chest radiation therapy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical outcomes for TAVR in cancer survivors with prior chest radiation therapy (C-XRT) who develop symptomatic aortic-valve stenosis are not adequately assessed in major clinical trials leading to conflicting results. Hence, we conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the, safety, efficacy, and mortality outcomes of cancer survivors with prior C-XRT undergoing TAVR. MEDLINE and Scopus were searched up to March 2024. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing severe aortic stenosis patients with and without prior C-XRT undergoing TAVR with at least one outcome of interest were shortlisted. Data were analyzed using random-effects model to derive weighted mean differences, and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Six studies with 6,191 patients (278 C-XRT and 5,913 no-C-XRT) were included. All-cause mortality at 30-day (RR 1.63, p = 0.12) and 1-year interval (RR 1.59, p = 0.08) showed no significant differences with prior C-XRT versus no-C-XRT. Worsening CHF was the only post-procedural safety outcome significantly higher in patients with prior C-XRT (RR 1.98, p = 0.0004) versus no- C-XRT. The efficacy end-points i.e., improvement in LVEF (MD 1.24; -0.50, 2.98), and aortic valve gradient (MD -0.63; -1.32, 0.05) were not significantly different. TAVR has similar all-cause mortality, efficacy and safety (except CHF worsening) among cancer survivors with and without a prior history of C-XRT.

Transcatheter aortic valve intervention in patients with cancer

The prevalence of concurrent cancer and severe aortic stenosis (AS) is increasing due to an ageing population. In addition to shared traditional risk factors for AS and cancer, patients with cancer may be at increased risk for AS due to off-target effects of cancer-related therapy, such as mediastinal radiation therapy (XRT), as well as shared non-traditional pathophysiological mechanisms. Compared with surgical aortic valve replacement, major adverse events are generally lower in patients with cancer undergoing transcatheter aortic valve intervention (TAVI), especially in those with history of mediastinal XRT. Similar procedural and short-to-intermediate TAVI outcomes have been observed in patients with cancer as compared with no cancer, whereas long-term outcomes are dependent on cancer survival. Considerable heterogeneity exists between cancer subtypes and stage, with worse outcomes observed in those with active and advanced-stage disease as well as specific cancer subtypes. Procedural management in patients with cancer poses unique challenges and thus requires periprocedural expertise and close collaboration with the referring oncology team. The decision to ultimately pursue TAVI involves a multidisciplinary and holistic approach in assessing the appropriateness of intervention. Further clinical trial and registry studies are needed to better appreciate outcomes in this population.

Characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients with prior chest radiation undergoing TAVR: Observations from PARTNER-2

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to investigate the viability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) in patients with prior chest radiation therapy (cXRT).

BACKGROUND

Since patients with prior cXRT perform poorly with surgical aortic valve replacement, TAVR can be a viable alternative. However, clinical outcomes after TAVR in this patient population have not been well studied.

METHODS

From the pooled registry of the placement of aortic transcatheter valves II trial, we identified patients with and without prior cXRT who underwent TAVR (n = 64 and 3923, respectively). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death and any stroke at 2 years. Time to event analyses were shown as Kaplan-Meier event rates and compared by log-rank testing. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated and compared by Cox proportional hazards regression model.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the patients with and without prior cXRT (30.7% vs. 27.0%; p = 0.75; HR, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.77). Rates of myocardial infarction, vascular complications, acute kidney injury, or new pacemaker implant after TAVR were not statistically different between the two groups. The rate of immediate reintervention with a second valve for aortic regurgitation after TAVR was higher among the patients with prior cXRT. However, no further difference was observed during 2 years follow-up after discharge from the index-procedure hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR is a viable alternative for severe symptomatic AS in patients who had cXRT in the past.

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.