Aortic valve stenosis and cancer: a common and complex association

Unraveling the Enigma of Moderate Aortic Stenosis: Challenges and Future Prospects

According to current guidelines, only clinical surveillance is recommended for patients with moderate aortic valve stenosis (AS), while aortic valve replacement may be considered in patients undergoing surgery for other indications. Recent studies have shown that moderate AS is associated with a high risk of adverse cardiovascular events, including death, especially in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. In this context, multimodality imaging can help to improve the accuracy of moderate AS diagnosis and to assess left ventricular remodeling response. This review discusses the natural history of this valve disease and the role of multimodality imaging in the diagnostic process, summarizes current evidence on the medical and non-medical management, and highlights ongoing trials on valve replacement.

Differential Rates of Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Other Outcomes in Colorectal Cancer Patients With Aortic Stenosis

Background Aortic stenosis (AS) has been established as a precipitating factor in the development of colonic angiodysplasia, resulting in lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). While the association between AS and LGIB, termed "Heyde syndrome," has been examined extensively, few studies assess the impact of comorbid AS on rates of LGIB in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Our goal is to examine this association.  Methods Patients hospitalized from 2001 to 2013 diagnosed with CRC were identified via ICD-9 codes, further stratified by a diagnosis of AS. Continuous and categorical variables were analyzed by independent sample t-tests and chi-squared analyses respectively. Assessed outcomes included mortality, length of stay (LOS), hospital costs, rates of LGIB, colonic obstruction, colonic perforation, iron-deficiency anemia (IDA), and colectomy. Multivariate analysis via binary logistic regression was utilized to control confounding variables. Results Patients with CRC and AS had higher rates of mortality, lower gastrointestinal bleeding, iron deficiency anemia, and colectomy, while those without AS had higher rates of colonic obstruction. Length of stay and total hospital charges were higher in patients with AS.  Discussion CRC outcomes were worse in patients with AS. This could be due to higher rates of LGIB secondary to the prevalence of angiodysplasia among AS patients. More retrospective studies are required to assess the impact of comorbid AS in patients with CRC.

Trends and Outcomes of TAVI and SAVR in Cancer and Noncancer Patients: A Nationwide Analysis

Background

Patients with severe aortic stenosis and cancer are often denied surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) due to a prohibitive risk of perioperative mortality.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis and cancer.

Methods

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (2002-2018) was used to study the outcomes of TAVI vs SAVR in patients with active or prior history of prostate, lung, colorectal, breast, and renal cancer. A propensity score-matched analysis to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and its components.

Results

A total of 1,505,995 crude population and a subset of 345,413 noncancer and 33,565 cancer patients were selected on propensity score-matched analysis. The yearly trend showed a steep increase in the utilization of TAVI. Compared with SAVR, TAVI had a lower risk of in-hospital mortality in prostate cancer, while there was no difference among other cancer types. Patients with lung (aOR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.43-0.97) and prostate cancer (aOR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.66-0.96) had lower, while colorectal cancer (aOR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.08-1.90) had higher odds of MACE with TAVI. The incidence of major bleeding was lower with TAVI (except for lung cancer), while the risk of stroke was similar (except for colorectal cancer) between TAVI and SAVR.

Conclusions

TAVI in patients with prostate, breast, lung, and renal cancer appears to be a reasonable alternative to SAVR with lower or similar risks of mortality and MACE.