Cancer History Portends Worse Acute and Long-term Noncardiac (but Not Cardiac) Mortality After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Cancer history and physical function in patients with cardiovascular disease

Both cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD) cause skeletal muscle mass loss, thereby increasing the likelihood of a poor prognosis. We investigated the association between cancer history and physical function and their combined association with prognosis in patients with CVD. We retrospectively reviewed 3,796 patients with CVD (median age: 70 years; interquartile range [IQR]: 61-77 years) who had undergone physical function tests (gait speed and 6-minute walk distance [6MWD]) at discharge. We performed multiple linear regression analyses to assess potential associations between cancer history and physical function. Moreover, Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate prognostic associations in four groups of patients categorized by the absence or presence of cancer history and of high or low physical function. Multiple regression analyses showed that cancer history was significantly and independently associated with a lower gait speed and 6MWD performance. A total of 610 deaths occurred during the follow-up period (median: 3.1 years; IQR: 1.4-5.4 years). The coexistence of low physical function and cancer history in patients with CVD was associated with a significantly higher mortality risk, even after adjusting for covariates (cancer history/low gait speed, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.93, P < 0.001; and cancer history/low 6MWD, HR: 1.61, P = 0.002). Cancer history is associated with low physical function in patients with CVD, and the combination of both factors is associated with a poor prognosis.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

What to Do When There Is Something Unexpected?

BACKGROUND

Myocardial infarction is currently the leading cause of death worldwide, followed by malignant neoplasms. The presence of both within the same patient obviously increases the risk of death, as many coronary events are detected in patients diagnosed with cancer. Diagnosis of an occult digestive cancer in the acute phase of myocardial infarction is most frequently prompted by a hemorrhagic complication.

CASE SUMMARY

This case features an 81-year-old male patient diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction, treated with primary percutaneous intervention (PCI), who developed post-stenting hemorrhagic complications in the first 24 h due to the presence of two different concomitant malignant neoplasms. The outcome was favorable in the acute phase, even if de-escalation therapy was given immediately post-stenting, and intrastent residual thrombotic risk was high.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of bleeding complications in patients with acute myocardial infarction should mobilize resources in search of a neoplastic cause, especially a digestive one. However, other locations should be looked for, depending on the source of bleeding.

Impact of a Cancer History on Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With Myocardial Infarction Who Received Revascularization

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether a cancer history increases the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events among patients with myocardial infarction (MI) who undergo revascularization.Methods and Results: Patients who were confirmed as type 1 acute MI (AMI) by coronary angiography were retrospectively analyzed. Patients who died in hospital or those not undergoing revascularization were excluded. Patients with a cancer history were compared with those without it. A cancer history was examined in the in-hospital cancer registry. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiac death, recurrent type 1 MI, post-discharge coronary revascularization, heart failure hospitalization, and stroke. Among 551 AMI patients, 55 had a cancer history (cancer group) and 496 did not (non-cancer group). Cox proportional hazards model revealed that the risk of composite endpoint was significantly higher in the cancer group than in the non-cancer group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13-2.82). Among the cancer group, patients who were diagnosed as AMI within 6 months after the cancer diagnosis had a higher risk of the composite endpoint than those who were diagnosed as AMI 6 months or later after the cancer diagnosis (adjusted HR: 5.43; 95% CI: 1.55-19.07).

CONCLUSIONS

A cancer history increased the risk of CV events after discharge among AMI patients after revascularization.

Improved interpretable machine learning emergency department triage tool addressing class imbalance

Objective

The Score for Emergency Risk Prediction (SERP) is a novel mortality risk prediction score which leverages machine learning in supporting triage decisions. In its derivation study, SERP-2d, SERP-7d and SERP-30d demonstrated good predictive performance for 2-day, 7-day and 30-day mortality. However, the dataset used had significant class imbalance. This study aimed to determine if addressing class imbalance can improve SERP's performance, ultimately improving triage accuracy.

Methods

The Singapore General Hospital (SGH) emergency department (ED) dataset was used, which contains 1,833,908 ED records between 2008 and 2020. Records between 2008 and 2017 were randomly split into a training set (80%) and validation set (20%). The 2019 and 2020 records were used as test sets. To address class imbalance, we used random oversampling and random undersampling in the AutoScore-Imbalance framework to develop SERP+-2d, SERP+-7d, and SERP+-30d scores. The performance of SERP+, SERP, and the commonly used triage risk scores was compared.

Results

The developed SERP+ scores had five to six variables. The AUC of SERP+ scores (0.874 to 0.905) was higher than that of the corresponding SERP scores (0.859 to 0.894) on both test sets. This superior performance was statistically significant for SERP+-7d (2019: Z = -5.843, p < 0.001, 2020: Z = -4.548, p < 0.001) and SERP+-30d (2019: Z = -3.063, p = 0.002, 2020: Z = -3.256, p = 0.001). SERP+ outperformed SERP marginally on sensitivity, specificity, balanced accuracy, and positive predictive value measures. Negative predictive value was the same for SERP+ and SERP. Additionally, SERP+ showed better performance compared to the commonly used triage risk scores.

Conclusions

Accounting for class imbalance during training improved score performance for SERP+. Better stratification of even a small number of patients can be meaningful in the context of the ED triage. Our findings reiterate the potential of machine learning-based scores like SERP+ in supporting accurate, data-driven triage decisions at the ED.

Safety of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with cancer: a nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia in patients with cancer, especially breast, gastrointestinal, respiratory, urinary tract, and hematological malignancies. Catheter ablation (CA) is a well-established, safe treatment option in healthy patients; however, literature regarding safety of CA for AF in patients with cancer is limited and confined to single centers.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the outcomes and peri-procedural safety of CA for AF in patients with certain types of cancer.

METHODS

The NIS database was queried between 2016 and 2019 to identify primary hospitalizations with AF and CA. Hospitalizations with secondary diagnosis of atrial flutter and other arrhythmias were excluded. Propensity score matching was used to balance the covariates between cancer and non-cancer groups. Logistic regression was used to analyze the association.

RESULTS

During this period, 47,765 CA procedures were identified, out of which 750 (1.6%) hospitalizations had a diagnosis of cancer. After propensity matching, hospitalizations with cancer diagnosis had higher in-hospital mortality (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.5-6.2, p = 0.001), lower home discharge rates (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.9, p < 0.001) as well as other complications such as major bleeding (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.7, p = 0.001) and pulmonary embolism (OR 6.1, 95% CI 2.1-17.8, p < 0.001) but not associated with any major cardiac complications (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.8, p = 0.53).

CONCLUSION

Patients with cancer who underwent CA for AF had significantly higher odds of in-hospital mortality, major bleeding, and pulmonary embolism. Further larger prospective observational studies are needed to validate these findings.

Impact of a Prior Cancer Diagnosis on Quality of Care and Survival Following Acute Myocardial Infarction: Retrospective Population-Based Cohort Study in England

BACKGROUND

An increasing proportion of patients with cancer experience acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We investigated differences in quality of AMI care and survival between patients with and without previous cancer diagnoses.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using Virtual Cardio-Oncology Research Initiative data. Patients aged 40+ years hospitalized in England with AMI between January 2010 and March 2018 were assessed, ascertaining previous cancers diagnosed within 15 years. Multivariable regression was used to assess effects of cancer diagnosis, time, stage, and site on international quality indicators and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 512 388 patients with AMI (mean age, 69.3 years; 33.5% women), 42 187 (8.2%) had previous cancers. Patients with cancer had significantly lower use of ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (mean percentage point decrease [mppd], 2.6% [95% CI, 1.8-3.4]) and lower overall composite care (mppd, 1.2% [95% CI, 0.9-1.6]). Poorer quality indicator attainment was observed in patients with cancer diagnosed in the last year (mppd, 1.4% [95% CI, 1.8-1.0]), with later stage disease (mppd, 2.5% [95% CI, 3.3-1.4]), and with lung cancer (mppd, 2.2% [95% CI, 3.0-1.3]). Twelve-month all-cause survival was 90.5% in noncancer controls and 86.3% in adjusted counterfactual controls. Differences in post-AMI survival were driven by cancer-related deaths. Modeling improving quality indicator attainment to noncancer patient levels showed modest 12-month survival benefits (lung cancer, 0.6%; other cancers, 0.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Measures of quality of AMI care are poorer in patients with cancer, with lower use of secondary prevention medications. Findings are primarily driven by differences in age and comorbidities between cancer and noncancer populations and attenuated after adjustment. The largest impact was observed in recent cancer diagnoses (<1 year) and lung cancer. Further investigation will determine whether differences reflect appropriate management according to cancer prognosis or whether opportunities to improve AMI outcomes in patients with cancer exist.

Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis: Modern Approach to a Classic Challenge

In-stent restenosis (ISR) is a recognized complication following percutaneous coronary intervention in which the luminal diameter is narrowed through neointimal hyperplasia and vessel remodeling. Although rates of ISR have decreased in most recent years owing to newer generation drug-eluting stents, thinner struts, and better intravascular imaging modalities, ISR remains a prevalent dilemma that proves to be challenging to manage. Several factors have been proposed to contribute to ISR formation, including mechanical stent characteristics, technical factors during the coronary intervention, and biological aspects of drug-eluting stents. Presentation of ISR can range from asymptomatic to late myocardial infarction and could be difficult to differentiate from acute thrombus formation. No definite guidelines are present on the management of ISR. In this review, we will discuss the mechanisms underlying ISR and provide insight into patient-related and procedural risk factors contributing to ISR, in addition to highlighting common treatment approaches utilized in the management of ISR.

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.

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.

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.

Index Admission and Thirty-Day Readmission Outcomes of Patients With Cancer Presenting With STEMI

BACKGROUND

National-level data of cancer patients' readmissions after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this study was to compare the rates and causes of 30-day readmissions in patients with and without cancer.

METHODS

Among patients admitted with STEMI in the United States National Readmission Database (NRD) from October 2015-December 2017, we identified patients with the diagnosis of active breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer. The primary endpoint was the 30-day unplanned readmission rate. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital outcomes during the index admission and causes of readmissions. A propensity score model was used to compare the outcomes of patients with and without cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 385,522 patients were included in the analysis: 5956 with cancer and 379,566 without cancer. After propensity score matching, 23,880 patients were compared (Cancer = 5949, No Cancer = 17,931). Patients with cancer had higher 30-day readmission rates (19% vs. 14%, p < 0.01). The most common causes for readmission among patients with cancer were cardiac (31%), infectious (21%), oncologic (17%), respiratory (4%), stroke (4%), and renal (3%). During the first readmission, patients with cancer had higher adjusted rates of in-hospital mortality (15% vs. 7%; p < 0.01) and bleeding complications (31% vs. 21%; p < 0.01), compared to the non-cancer group. In addition, cancer (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2-1.6, p < 0.01) was an independent predictor for 30-day readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

About one in five cancer patients presenting with STEMI will be readmitted within 30 days. Cardiac causes predominated the reason for 30-day readmissions in patients with cancer.

Coronary Artery Disease and Cancer: Treatment and Prognosis Regarding Gender Differences

Simple Summary

Cardiovascular disease and cancer are the leading causes of hospitalization and mortality in high-income countries. Studies of myocardial infarction show a disadvantage for the female sex in terms of survival and development of heart failure after myocardial infarction. The extent to which this also applies to the co-occurrence of coronary heart disease and cancer was investigated and analyzed here in large registry studies. Particular attention has been paid to the four most common cancers and hematologic diseases associated with coronary artery disease requiring treatment.

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease and cancer remain the leading causes of hospitalization and mortality in high-income countries. Survival after myocardial infarction has improved but there is still a difference in clinical outcome, mortality, and developing heart failure to the disadvantage of women with myocardial infarction. Most major cardiology trials and registries have excluded patients with cancer. As a result, there is only very limited information on the effects of coronary artery disease in cancer patients. In particular, the outcomes in women with cancer and coronary artery disease and its management remain empiric. We reviewed studies of over 27 million patients with coronary artery disease and cancer. Our review focused on the most important types of cancer (breast, colon, lung, prostate) and hematological malignancies with particular attention to sex-specific differences in treatment and prognosis.

OUP accepted manuscript

Long-term follow-up after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) beyond 5 years is poorly described. There are no risk-stratification systems available for routine use. This retrospective, academic, two-centre analysis included consecutive patients who presented with acute STEMI between March 2008 and December 2019. In total, 5263 patients underwent pPCI; all patients were included in the analysis only once. Baseline characteristics were gathered from prospective local registries and based on initial hospitalization. The study enrolled 5263 patients who had been treated with pPCI; it found that cardiovascular mortality was the most frequent cause of death (65.0%) on long-term follow-up to 12 years. Myocardial infarction associated mortality was 27.2%. Cardiovascular mortality was dominant, including in the landmark analysis beyond 1 year. Multivariate analysis identified significant predictors for long-term cardiovascular mortality: age, history of diabetes mellitus, history of renal insufficiency, history of heart failure, Killip class, and successful pPCI at presentation. A predictive model was built to evaluate the risk of cardiovascular death with a high discrimination value (C-statistic = 0.84). Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of long-term mortality after pPCI in the Central European population. Our novel predictive model provides risk stratification; it could identify patients who would experience the greatest benefit from aggressive secondary prevention measures.

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.

The Effect of a Cancer History on Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The effect of a history of cancer on the prognosis of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is poorly understood.From the Osaka Acute Coronary Insufficiency Study (OACIS) registry in Osaka, Japan, we enrolled the case data of a total of 3499 patients with AMI treated with PCI between 1998 and 2014, of whom 462 had a cancer history (cancer group, 13.2%) and 3037 did not (non-cancer group, 86.8%). All of the cases were followed for up to five years from discharge.The Kaplan-Meier curve and multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazards models revealed that all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the cancer group than in the non-cancer group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.43; P < 0.001). Deaths from cardiac, cancer, and other causes were treated as competing events, and competing analysis using the cumulative incidence function (CIF) and Fine-Gray model revealed that mortality due to cancer was higher in the cancer group than in the non-cancer group, whereas cardiac mortality was similar between the two groups. The incidences of cardiovascular events, including stroke, recurrent infarction, and heart failure requiring readmission, were also similar between the two groups, although the Kaplan-Meier analysis and univariate Cox proportional hazards model revealed that the incidence of stroke was higher in the cancer group than in the non-cancer group.A history of cancer increased all-cause and cancer mortality among patients with AMI treated with PCI, although it was not associated with cardiovascular events.

Impact of malignancy on clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

The impact of cancer on survival in patients with coronary artery disease has not been well defined. We designed the present study to explore the prevalence and prognostic influence of cancer in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

METHODS

2'132 patients with ACS were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter Special Program University Medicine ACS (SPUM-ACS) cohort. The primary endpoints of major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and death were independently adjudicated at 30-day and at one-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 2'132 ACS patients 7.74% (n = 165) had cancer. At 30-day, except for net adverse clinical events (NACE defined as MACCE plus major bleeding), outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. At one year, MACCE rate was higher in cancer than in non-cancer patients (21.8 vs. 12.2%, p < 0.001). Even after adjusting for covariates, one-year all-cause mortality was higher in cancer patients than in those without (30.3% vs. 11.9%; p < 0.0001) as was cardiovascular mortality (15.7% vs. 5.9%; p < 0.001) and revascularization (12.7% vs. 5.5%, p < 0.001). Net adverse clinical events were also higher in patients with cancer at one-year follow-up (33.9% vs. 19.8%, p < 0.001). A sub-analysis revealed that those with solid tumors, but not hematological malignancies were more likely to experience MACCE (p = 0.001) as well as a higher cardiovascular and all cause mortality (both p = 0.001) at one-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

ACS patients with cancer, specifically those with solid tumors, have a higher MACCE as well as cardiovascular and total mortality rate than non-cancer patients independent of cardiovascular risk factors. Thus, cancer is an independent risk factor for a poor outcome in ACS patients.

Cancer treatment resumption in patients with new-generation drug-eluting stents

OBJECTIVE

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with new-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) may provide survival benefits to the cancer population undergoing PCI by expediting cancer treatment due to improved safety profile. We aimed to assess the safety of starting or resuming cancer treatment within 6 months of DES placement. We also compared the impact of different DES types on the overall survival (OS) in cancer patients and to identify a safe threshold for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) discontinuation.

METHODS

Cancer patients at our institution undergoing PCI with DES from December 2014 to June 2017 were included. Baseline demographics, DAPT duration, malignancy type, stage, and treatment were retrospectively analyzed. Univariate Cox regression was used to pinpoint baseline characteristics that correlated with OS. Survivorship was determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis, and the log-rank test was used to compare OS among DES types.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients were included. Of these, 45 had biodegradable polymer DES (Synergy) and 30 patients had durable polymer DES (Resolute Integrity, Xience, Ion, or Promus). Mean duration of follow-up was 1367 ± 334 days. There were two minor bleeding complications. No statistically significant differences in OS were found among different stent brands. Discontinuation of aspirin, early P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, and advanced cancer were significantly associated with OS. DAPT discontinuation <6 months after PCI was not associated with stent thrombosis or in-stent restenosis. There were two major adverse cardiac events: one in-stent restenosis while on DAPT for >12 months (attributed to radiation-induced heart disease) and one myocardial infarction and death. Of patients who resumed or started cancer treatment (chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or surgery) after PCI, all but one did so within 6 months of PCI, and most of them as early as 2 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Patients may resume cancer treatment <6 months after PCI. We suggest that DAPT may be safely interrupted as early as 6 months, but additional longitudinal studies are needed.

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 Education and Training: JACC Council Perspectives

The innovative development of cancer therapies has led to an unprecedented improvement in survival outcomes and a wide array of treatment-related toxicities, including those that are cardiovascular in nature. Aging of the population further adds to the number of patients being treated for cancer, especially those with comorbidities. Such pre-existing and developing cardiovascular diseases pose some of the greatest risks of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Addressing the complex cardiovascular needs of these patients has become increasingly important, resulting in an imperative for an intersecting discipline: cardio-oncology. Over the past decade, there has been a remarkable rise of cardio-oncology clinics and service lines. This development, however, has occurred in a vacuum of standard practice and training guidelines, although these are being actively pursued. In this council perspective document, the authors delineate the scope of practice in cardio-oncology and the proposed training requirements, as well as the necessary core competencies. This document also serves as a roadmap toward confirming cardio-oncology as a subspecialty in medicine.

Assessment of coronary artery disease during hospitalization for cancer treatment

Background

With improvement of cancer-specific survival, comorbidities and treatment-related side effects, particularly cardiovascular toxicities, need close attention. The aim of the present study was to evaluate clinical characteristics and outcomes of cancer patients requiring coronary angiography during inpatient care.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized between 02/2011 and 02/2018 in our two university hospital cancer centers. From a cohort of 60,676 cancer patients, we identified 153 patients (65.7 ± 11.6 years, 73.2% male), who underwent coronary angiography and were eligible for analysis. These were compared to a control group of 153 non-cancer patients pair-matched with respect to age, sex, and indication for catheterization.

Results

Cancer patients presented in 66% with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The most prevalent cancer entities were lymphoma (19%) and lung cancer (18.3%). The rate of primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) was significantly lower in the cancer cohort (40.5% vs. 53.6%, p = 0.029), although manifestation of coronary artery disease (CAD) and PCI results were comparable (SYNergy between PCI with TAXus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX)-score, delta pre- and post-PCI − 9.8 vs. − 8.0, p = 0.2). Mortality was remarkably high in cancer patients (1-year mortality 46% vs. 8% in non-cancer patients, p < 0.001), particularly with troponin-positive ACS (5-year mortality 71%).

Conclusion

Strategies to effectively control cardiovascular risks in cancer patients are needed. Additionally, suspected CAD in cancer patients should not prevent prompt diagnostic clarification and optimal revascularization as PCI results in cancer patients are comparable to non-cancer patients and occurrence of troponin-positive ACS leads to a significantly increased risk of mortality.

Graphic Abstract

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00392-020-01719-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Acute coronary syndromes in cancer patients

: Cardiovascular disease and cancer are responsible for the majority of deaths in the Western world. These two entities share common risk factors and their intersection will be more and more frequent in future due to general population aging and long-term cancer control. Clinical presentation, management and outcome of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in cancer patients could differ from noncancer ones. Cancer patients were frequently excluded from clinical trials and so the paucity of data further complicates the scenario. The management of ACS in cancer patients represents a unique setting in which the risk/benefit ratio of invasive treatment should be carefully evaluated. This review focused on the available evidence of all aspects of ACS in cancer patients providing a guide to a multidisciplinary approach.

Temporal Trends in the Prevalence of Cancer and Its Impact on Outcome in Patients With First Myocardial Infarction: A Nationwide Study

Background Coexistence of cancer and cardiovascular disease is increasingly frequent, but nationwide data covering cancer patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are scarce. We sought to investigate the prevalence of cancer in patients with first MI, and its impact on cardiovascular and bleeding outcome. Methods and Results Using nationwide Swedish quality registries, all patients admitted for first MI between 2001 and 2014 were identified. Data on comorbidity, cancer, and outcome were obtained from the national cancer and patient registries. Stratification was performed according to cancer during the 5 years before MI. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors and invasive treatment assessed the association of cancer with outcome. In total, 175 146 patients with first MI were registered, of whom 9.3% (16 237) had received care for cancer in the 5 years before admission. The cancer rate increased from 6.7% in the years 2001-2002 to 10.7% in 2013-2014, independent of sex and cancer type. The presence of a new cancer diagnosis within 5 years increased from 4.9% to 6.2%. During a median follow-up of 4.3 years, cancer was associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.40-1.47), recurrent MI (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12), heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06-1.13), and major bleeding (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.34-1.57). Risk for adverse events varied strongly according to cancer extent, timing, and type. Conclusions Cancer as a comorbid disorder is increasing and is strongly associated with mortality, severe bleeding, and adverse cardiovascular outcome after first MI.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the prognostic impact of cancer among patients with acute coronary syndrome and/or percutaneous coronary intervention

Background

Patients with cancer admitted for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represent a growing and high-risk population. The influence of co-existing cancer on mortality remains unclear in such patients. We aimed to assess the impact of cancer on early and late, all-cause and cardiac mortality in the setting of ACS and/or PCI.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing outcomes of patients with and without a history of cancer admitted for ACS and/or PCI.

Results

Six studies including 294,528 ACS patients and three studies including 39,973 PCI patients were selected for our meta-analysis. Patients with cancer had increased rates of in-hospital all-cause death (RR 1.74 [1.22; 2.47]), cardiac death (RR 2.44 [1.73; 3.44]) and bleeding (RR 1.64 [1.35; 1.98]) as well as one-year all-cause death (RR 2.62 [1.2; 5.73]) and cardiac death (RR 1.89 [1.25; 2.86]) in ACS studies. Rates of long term all-cause (RR 1.96 [1.52; 2.53]) but not cardiac death were higher in cancer patients admitted for PCI.

Conclusion

Cancer patients represent a high-risk population both in the acute phase and at long-term after an ACS or PCI. The magnitude of the risk of mortality should however be tempered by the heterogeneity among studies. Early and long term optimal management of such patients should be promoted in clinical practice.

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.

Proceedings From the Global Cardio-Oncology Summit: The Top 10 Priorities to Actualize for CardioOncology

The discipline of cardio-oncology has expanded at a remarkable pace. Recent developments and challenges to clinicians who practice cardio-oncology were presented at the Global Cardio-Oncology Summit on October 3 to 4, 2019, in São Paulo, Brazil. Here, we present the top 10 priorities for our field that were discussed at the meeting, and also detail a potential path forward to address these challenges. Defining robust predictors of cardiotoxicity, clarifying the role of cardioprotection, managing and preventing thromboembolism, improving hematopoietic stem cell transplant outcomes, personalizing cardiac interventions, building the cardio-oncology community, detecting and treating cardiovascular events associated with immunotherapy, understanding tyrosine kinase inhibitor cardiotoxicity, and enhancing survivorship care are all priorities for the field. The path forward requires a commitment to research, education, and excellence in clinical care to improve our patients' lives.

Outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials demonstrated the benefits of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in diverse clinical settings. Patients with cancer were not routinely included in these studies.

METHODS/RESULTS

Literature search of PubMed, Cochrane, Medline, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials was conducted to identify studies that assessed one-year all-cause, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality in patients with historical or active cancer. Using the random effects model, we computed risk ratios (RRs) and standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals for the dichotomous and continuous measures and outcomes, respectively. Of 171 articles evaluated in total, 5 eligible studies were included in this meta-analysis. In total, 33,175 patients receiving PCI were analyzed, of whom 3323 patients had cancer and 29,852 no cancer history. Patients in the cancer group had greater all-cause mortality [RR 2.22 (1.51-3.26; p<0.001)], including cardiovascular mortality [RR 1.34 (1.1-1.65; p=0.005)] and non-cardiovascular mortality [RR 3.42 (1.74-6.74; p≤0.001], at one-year compared to non-cancer patients. Patients in the cancer group had greater one-month all-cause mortality [RR 2.01 (1.24-3.27; p=0.005)] and greater non-cardiovascular mortality [RR 6.87 (3.10-15.21; p≤0.001)], but no difference in one-month cardiovascular mortality compared to non-cancer patients. Meta-regression analyses showed that the difference in one-year all-cause and cardiovascular mortality between both groups was not attributable to differences in baseline characteristics, index PCI characteristics, or medications prescribed at discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with cancer undergoing PCI have worse mid-term outcomes compared to non-cancer patients. Cancer patients should be managed by a multi-specialist team, in an effort to close the mortality gap.

The Two-way Relationship Between Cancer and Atherosclerosis

In the last few years, there has been growing interest in the relationship between cancer and cardiovascular disease. The increase in life expectancy in both diseases has led to their frequent coexistence in the same patient, which can lead to adverse drug reactions that increase patient risk. This is especially relevant in the case of atherosclerosis, which seems to share a common pathophysiological substrate with cancer. In this review, we analyze these common risk factors, and specifically analyze the relationship between different cancer treatments with the risk of coronary or cerebrovascular disease, as well as the current scientific evidence on the possible relationship between antiplatelet therapy and cancer risk. We also review the incidence and prognosis of cancer in patients with atherosclerosis and vice versa, based on the information reported in the most recently published studies in the field of cardio-oncology.

Neoplastic disease after acute coronary syndrome: incidence, duration, and features: the ABC-4* Study on Heart Disease

AIM

To investigate the clinical features and incidence of malignant neoplasia during 17 years of follow-up in an unselected sample of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

METHODS

The Adria, Bassano, Conegliano, and Padova Hospital-4 Study on Heart Disease is an ongoing, prospective study of an unbiased population of patients with ACS. Baseline clinical and laboratory data were obtained during the first 7 days of hospitalization at three different intensive coronary care units. The current study included data from 589 patients with ACS.

RESULTS

At enrollment, 19 patients had confirmed neoplasia. During follow-up, 99 additional patients developed malignant neoplastic disease. The incidence rate was 17.8 cases per 1000 person-years, which was about three times higher than that observed in the general population. Patients had a shorter duration of neoplasia when they developed it after enrollment compared with those with preexisting neoplasia [hazard ratio = 2.0 (1.5-2.6), P = 0.001]. Patients with neoplasia who died during follow-up had an earlier onset of neoplasia [hazard ratio = 1.8 (1.1-2.9), P = 0.01] and shorter duration than survivors [hazard ratio = 4.1 (2.4-7.0), P < 0.0001]. The estimated time to diagnosis of neoplasia indicated elderly patients had a significantly higher risk than younger people during the 17 years of follow-up. After the onset of neoplasia, survival time declined more sharply in the elderly than younger people.

CONCLUSION

The long-term prospective study showed that patients with ACS have a higher incidence of malignancy than the general population. Those who develop neoplasm after being diagnosed with ACS have a worse prognosis than patients with a preexisting neoplasia.

Effect of cancer history on post-resuscitation treatments in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

OBJECTIVES

There is growing evidence that optimal post-resuscitation treatment is a significant factor for overall survival and neurological outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, there is also growing evidence of disparities in treatments in vulnerable populations such as elderly individuals or patients with underlying diseases, including cancer.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of cancer status on post-resuscitation therapies among OHCA patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a cross-sectional observational study based on a nationwide prospective OHCA registry database of Korea. All adult OHCA patients with presumed cardiac etiology and sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) from 2009 to 2016 were included in this study. Main exposure was history of cancer and primary outcome was post-resuscitation care, including percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and targeted temperature management (TTM). Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze the association between cancer and post-resuscitation treatments.

RESULTS

A total of 33,760 patients were included for final analysis. Multivariable logistic analysis showed that cancer patients were significantly less likely to receive PCI and TTM compared to those without history of cancer with adjusted odds ratios of 0.29 (95% CI: 0.24-0.37) and 0.66 (0.58-0.77), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that a prior history of cancer may be associated with lower probability to receive potentially beneficial post-resuscitation treatments.

Arterial events in cancer patients-the case of acute coronary thrombosis

Patients with cancer are at high risk for both venous and arterial thrombotic complications. A variety of factors account for the greater thrombotic risk, including the underlying malignancy and numerous cancer-directed therapies. The occurrence of an acute thrombotic event in patients with cancer is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) represents a particularly important cardiovascular complication in cancer patients. With cardio-vascular risk factors becoming more prevalent in an aging cancer population that is surviving longer, questions pertaining to the appropriate management of vascular toxicity are likely to assume even greater value in the coming years. In this article, we review the current understanding of ACS in patients with cancer. The predisposition to thrombosis in a malignant host and the cancer treatments most commonly associated with vascular toxicity are reviewed. Risk prediction and management strategies are discussed, and discrepancies in the clinical evidence are highlighted.

Acute Coronary Syndrome Management in Cancer Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronary artery disease and cancer often co-exist. Patients with cancer have been excluded by most major cardiology trials and registries and their management remains largely empiric. Cancer patients experience an approximately 10-times increased mortality compared to the general population. Conservative therapy of ACS in cancer therapy results in 1-year mortality of 74%. This review article aims to describe the mechanisms of acute coronary syndromes in cancer patients, their clinical presentation, and their management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Newer studies have shed light on the mechanisms of ACS in cancer patients, which are different and related to the type of malignancy and its associated therapy. Medication-specific coronary effects (vasospasm, endothelial dysfunction, spontaneous thrombosis, accelerated atherosclerosis), radiation vasculitis, cancer cell coronary embolism, and coronary compression from thoracic malignancies are unique ACS mechanisms in cancer patients. Close collaboration between oncologists and cardiologists for thoughtful patient selection and decision making strategies is necessary to provide optimal medical care.

Re-Evaluating the Safety of Drug-Eluting Stents in Cancer Patients

Evidence increasingly shows that cancer and coronary artery disease are interlinked through common risk factors, co-occurrence in an aging population, and through the deleterious effects of cancer treatment on cardiovascular health. Many of the clinical risk factors for cancer, such as diabetes, smoking, and chronic inflammatory state, are also risk factors for coronary artery disease and for stent restenosis and thrombosis. The current generations of drug-eluting stents have been proven to reduce the risk of restenosis and stent thrombosis as compared with bare-metal stents. However, because of the perceived need for shorter course of dual antiplatelet treatment, operators often prefer bare-metal stents in patients with cancer out of concern for increased bleeding risk and expectant need for cancer-directed surgery. The current evidence with newer-generation stent technology demonstrates the feasibility of shorter duration of dual antiplatelet treatment, without increasing the risk of stent thrombosis and bleeding, while maintaining improved efficacy compared with bare-metal stents. Cardiovascular disease in patients with cancer is complex, and treatment needs to be individualized. Refraining from the use of drug-eluting stents altogether in this rapidly expanding cohort may lead to higher major adverse cardiovascular events, which can thwart the effectiveness of advances in both cancer and cardiovascular therapeutics. Considering the developing evidence thus far, perhaps it is time to rethink the choice of stent in patients with cancer who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention.

Arterial Thrombosis in Patients with Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cancer is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in the USA. While the association between venous thrombosis and malignancy is well established, arterial thrombosis has more recently been recognized as a serious complication of cancer and certain chemotherapeutic agents. This review aims to summarize the most recent literature regarding the incidence and risk factors for cancer-related arterial thrombosis, understand the pathophysiologic mechanisms of thrombosis, and highlight the specific diagnostic and treatment considerations relevant to cancer patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Based on a recent study looking at the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, the incidence of arterial thromboembolic events (ATEs) in patients with cancer at 6 months is 4.7%; the presence of an ATE is predictive of worse outcomes. Certain drugs such as platinum-based agents, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and taxanes have been associated with high rates of ATEs. Increased platelet reactivity appears crucial to development of arterial thrombosis in cancer patients. Cancer patients have an increased risk of arterial thrombosis that is likely due to both a cancer-associated procoagulant state as well as the adverse effects of certain chemotherapeutic agents. Treatment of arterial thromboembolism in cancer patients typically requires a multidisciplinary approach in part due to high rates of thrombocytopenia and stent thrombosis in the setting of percutaneous interventions. More studies are needed to investigate optimal prophylaxis, surveillance strategies, and treatments of cancer-related arterial thromboembolic disease.