Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cancer and readmissions within 90 days for acute myocardial infarction and bleeding in the USA

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.

Emergent Coronary Thrombectomy for Acute Myocardial Infarction Immediately Following Craniotomy with Tumor Resection

The management of perioperative acute myocardial infarction (AMI) following oncologic neurosurgery requires balancing competing risks of myocardial ischemia and postoperative bleeding. There are limited human data to establish the safest timing of antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy following neurosurgical procedures. For patients with malignancy experiencing AMI in the acute postoperative period, staged percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with upfront coronary aspiration thrombectomy followed by delayed completion PCI may offer an opportunity for myocardial salvage while minimizing postoperative bleeding risks. CYP2C19 genotyping and platelet aggregation studies can help confirm adequate platelet inhibition once antiplatelet therapy is resumed.

An unusual cause of anterior wall ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a case report

Background

Metastatic tumours, notably lung cancer, can cause conditions resembling acute myocardial infarctions (AMIs), contributing to the minor percentage of AMIs unrelated to coronary atherosclerosis. These instances necessitate specialized diagnostic and therapeutic approaches due to the distinct underlying pathology.

Case summary

We report a case of a 65-year-old male with metastatic lung cancer presenting with prolonged angina pectoris. Elevated troponin and creatine kinase levels led to emergency catheterization, revealing a total occlusion of the distal left coronary artery attributed to tumour infiltration. Intervention attempts were unsuccessful, and given the palliative context, other revascularization strategies were not pursued. Two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiogram depicted tumour invasion at the heart's apex, confirming the diagnosis. The patient passed away shortly after receiving palliative radiation therapy.

Discussion

This case underscores the challenges in diagnosing and managing myocardial infiltrations from metastatic tumours mimicking AMI. It accentuates the importance of imaging studies for accurate diagnosis and the critical evaluation of intervention strategies, highlighting the need for focused palliative care in such complex scenarios.

Ischaemic heart disease in patients with cancer

Cardiologists are encountering a growing number of cancer patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD). Several factors account for the interrelationship between these two conditions, in addition to improving survival rates in the cancer population. Established cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, such as hypercholesterolaemia and obesity, predispose to both IHD and cancer, through specific mechanisms and via low-grade, systemic inflammation. This latter is also fuelled by clonal haematopoiesis of indeterminate potential. Furthermore, experimental work indicates that IHD and cancer can promote one another, and the CV or metabolic toxicity of anticancer therapies can lead to IHD. The connections between IHD and cancer are reinforced by social determinants of health, non-medical factors that modify health outcomes and comprise individual and societal domains, including economic stability, educational and healthcare access and quality, neighbourhood and built environment, and social and community context. Management of IHD in cancer patients is often challenging, due to atypical presentation, increased bleeding and ischaemic risk, and worse outcomes as compared to patients without cancer. The decision to proceed with coronary revascularization and the choice of antithrombotic therapy can be difficult, particularly in patients with chronic coronary syndromes, necessitating multidisciplinary discussion that considers both general guidelines and specific features on a case by case basis. Randomized controlled trial evidence in cancer patients is very limited and there is urgent need for more data to inform clinical practice. Therefore, coexistence of IHD and cancer raises important scientific and practical questions that call for collaborative efforts from the cardio-oncology, cardiology, and oncology communities.

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.

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.

Interventional cardiology in cancer patients: A position paper from the Portuguese Cardiovascular Intervention Association and the Portuguese Cardio-Oncology Study Group of the Portuguese Society of Cardiology

The field of Cardio-Oncology has grown significantly, especially during the last decade. While awareness of cardiotoxicity due to cancer disease and/or therapies has greatly increased, much of the attention has focused on myocardial systolic disfunction and heart failure. However, coronary and structural heart disease are also a common issue in cancer patients and encompass the full spectrum of cardiotoxicity. While invasive percutaneous or surgical intervention, either is often needed or considered in cancer patients, limited evidence or guidelines are available for dealing with coronary or structural heart disease. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions consensus document published in 2016 is the most comprehensive document regarding this particular issue, but relevant evidence has emerged since, which render some of its considerations outdated. In addition to that, the recent 2022 ESC Guidelines on Cardio-Oncology only briefly discuss this topic. As a result, the Portuguese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and the Cardio-Oncology Study Group of the Portuguese Society of Cardiology have partnered to produce a position paper to address the issue of cardiac intervention in cancer patients, focusing on percutaneous techniques. A brief review of available evidence is provided, followed by practical considerations. These are based both on the literature as well as accumulated experience with these types of patients, as the authors are either interventional cardiologists, cardiologists with experience in the field of Cardio-Oncology, or both.

Antithrombotic strategy in cancer patients comorbid with acute coronary syndrome and atrial fibrillation

It has been shown that patients with cancer have a longer expected life duration, benefiting from advanced medical therapy. Meanwhile, the risk of suffering from cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been increasing with ageing. A growing number of studies have elucidated the association between cancer and CVD. Cancer, atrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary artery disease share some common factors and interact with each other, such as obesity, aging, diabetes, and inflammation, but the potential specific mechanism is still unclear. In addition, cancer-specific and therapy-related factors may increase the risk of embolism and bleeding in patients with cancer than in general population. However, current available embolic and bleeding risk scores applied in patients with CVD may not be applicable for risk assessment in cancer patients, which would be difficult for clinicians to select an appropriate antithrombotic regimen and ensure the balance between bleeding and embolism. Moreover, different types of cancer have distinct risks, which may increase the complexity of antithrombotic therapy. In this review, we review the literature related to cancer, AF, and acute coronary syndrome, focusing on the epidemiological status, physiological mechanism, embolism and bleeding risks, and strategies of antithrombotic therapy.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With or Without Active Cancer

Background Data on clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in specific cancer types or the presence of metastatic disease remain sparse. This study aimed to investigate the impact of active cancer on short-term mortality, complications, and readmission rates after TAVR across different cancer types. Methods and Results The authors assessed the Nationwide Readmissions Database for TAVR cases from 2012 to 2019. Patients were stratified by specific cancer types. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included bleeding requiring blood transfusion and readmissions at 30, 90, and 180 days after TAVR. Overall, 122 573 patients undergoing TAVR were included in the analysis, of whom 8013 (6.5%) had active cancer. After adjusting for potential confounders, the presence of active cancer was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.06 [95% CI, 0.89-1.27]; P=0.523). However, active cancer was associated with an increased risk of readmission at 30, 90, and 180 days after TAVR and increased risk of bleeding requiring transfusion at 30 days. Active colon and any type of metastatic cancer were individually associated with readmissions at 30, 90, and 180 days after TAVR. At 30 days after TAVR, colon (aOR, 2.51 [95% CI, 1.68-3.76]; P<0.001), prostate (aOR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.05-1.86]; P=0.021), and any type of metastatic cancer (aOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.23-2.22]; P=0.001) were individually associated with an increased risk of bleeding requiring transfusion. Conclusions Patients with active cancer had similar in-hospital mortality after TAVR but higher risk of readmission and bleeding requiring transfusion, the latter depending on certain types of cancer.

Gender Differences in Long-Term Outcomes of Young Patients Who Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Long-Term Outcome Analysis from a Multicenter Registry in Japan

Young patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have shown worse long-term outcomes but remain inadequately investigated. We analyzed 1,186 consecutive young patients (aged ≤55 years) from the Keio Cardiovascular PCI registry who were successfully discharged after PCI (2008 to 2019) and compared them to 5,048 older patients (aged 55 to 75 years). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, bleeding, stroke requiring admission, and coronary artery bypass grafting within 2 years after discharge. In the young patients, the mean age was 48.4 ± 5.4 years, acute coronary syndrome cases accounted for 69.6%, and 92 (7.8%) were female. Body mass index; hemoglobin levels; and proportions of smoking, hyperlipidemia, and ST-elevation myocardial infarction were lower and dialysis or active cancer proportions were higher in young female patients than male patients. A higher number of young female than male patients reached the primary end point and all-cause death (15.2% vs 7.1%, p = 0.01; 4.3% vs 1.0%, p = 0.023), mainly because of noncardiac death (4.3% versus 0.5%, p = 0.001). After covariate adjustment, the primary end point rates were higher among young women than men (hazard ratio 2.00, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 3.89, p = 0.042). Gender did not predict the primary end point among older patients (vs men; hazard ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.06, p = 0.14). In conclusion, young women showed worse outcomes during the 2-year post-PCI follow-up, but this gender difference was absent in patients aged 55 to 75 years.

Outcome of cancer patients after atrial fibrillation ablation: Insights from the China-AF registry

BACKGROUND

Cancer has become significant comorbidity in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, little is known about the efficacy and safety of AF ablation, the first-line rhythm control strategy, in patients with cancer. This study aims to evaluate the incidence and risk of AF recurrence and safety endpoints in patients with cancer compared to the non-cancer group after ablation.

METHODS

From August 2011 to December 2020, we consecutively enrolled cancer patients in the China-AF cohort. We used propensity score matching (1:3) to select the control group and assessed the risk of AF recurrence and adverse events after ablation in cancer patients using a multivariable Fine and Gray competing risk model.

RESULTS

A total of 203 patients with cancer were enrolled and 21 of them were active cancer, with a median follow-up of 12.3 months. The cumulative incidence of AF recurrence was comparable between patients with and without cancer (43.8% vs. 51.1%; p = .88). No difference in the risk of AF recurrence, thromboembolism, major bleeding, and mortality was observed after adjusting confounders. Active cancer was not associated with an increased risk of AF recurrence compared to the stable disease (SHR = 1.32; 95% CI 0.72-2.43; p = .46). Cancer was associated with a low risk of cardiovascular hospitalization (SHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.81; p = .01). Subgroup analysis found that hematological malignancy was associated with a high risk of AF recurrence (SHR, 5.68; 95% CI, 3.00-10.8; p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that catheter ablation could be feasible for rhythm control of AF patients with concomitant cancer.

Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events Score Underestimates Post-Acute Coronary Syndrome Mortality among Cancer Patients

Background Patients with prior cancer are at increased risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with poorer post-ACS outcomes. We aimed to ascertain if the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score accurately predicts mortality risk among patients with ACS and prior cancer. Methods We linked nationwide ACS and cancer registries from 2007 to 2018 in Singapore. A total of 24,529 eligible patients had in-hospital and 1-year all-cause mortality risk calculated using the GRACE score (2471 prior cancer; 22,058 no cancer). Results Patients with prior cancer had two-fold higher all-cause mortality compared to patients without cancer (in-hospital: 22.8% versus 10.3%, p < 0.001; 1-year: 49.0% vs. 18.7%, p < 0.001). Cardiovascular mortality did not differ between groups (in-hospital: 5.2% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.346; 1-year: 6.9% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.12). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the GRACE score for prediction of all-cause mortality was less for prior cancer (in-hospital: 0.64 vs. 0.80, p < 0.001; 1-year: 0.66 vs. 0.83, p < 0.001). Among patients with prior cancer and a high-risk GRACE score > 140, in-hospital revascularization was not associated with lower cardiovascular mortality than without in-hospital revascularization (6.7% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.50). Conclusions The GRACE score performs poorly in risk stratification of patients with prior cancer and ACS.

Outcomes of Patients With Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Admitted With Myocardial Infarction: Insights From National Inpatient Sample

Background

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are hematopoietic stem cell neoplasms with a high risk of thrombosis, including acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, outcomes after AMI have not been thoroughly characterized.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to characterize outcomes after AMI in patients with MPNs compared with patients without MPNs.

Methods

Patients with a primary admission of AMI from January 2006 to December 2018 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital death or cardiac arrest (CA) and major bleeding. Propensity score weighting was used to compare outcomes between MPN and non-MPN groups.

Results

A total of 1,644,304 unweighted admissions for AMI were included; of these admissions, 5,374 (0.3%) were patients with MPNs. After propensity score weighting, patients with MPNs had a lower risk of in-hospital death or CA (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.82-0.84) but a higher risk of major bleeding (OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.28-1.30) compared with non-MPN patients. There was a decreasing temporal rate of in-hospital death or CA and bleeding in patients without MPNs (Ptrend < 0.001 for both). However, there was an increasing temporal rate of in-hospital death or CA (Ptrend < 0.001) and a stable rate of major bleeding (Ptrend = 0.48) in patients with MPNs.

Conclusions

Among patients hospitalized with AMI, patients with MPNs have a lower risk of in-hospital death or CA compared with patients without MPNs, although they have a higher risk of bleeding. More investigation is needed in order to improve post-AMI bleeding outcomes in patients with MPN.

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.

Association between cancer history and second-generation drug-eluting stent thrombosis: insights from the REAL-ST registry

BACKGROUND

Cancer-associated thrombosis is a frequent complication of cancer; however, little evidence is available regarding the association between cancer history and coronary artery stent thrombosis (ST). We aimed to investigate the relationship between cancer history and second-generation drug-eluting stent thrombosis (G2-ST).

METHODS

From the REAL-ST (Retrospective Multicenter Registry of ST After First- and Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation) registry, this study evaluated 1265 patients (G2- ST cases, n = 253; controls, n = 1012) with cancer-related information available.

RESULTS

The prevalence of patients with cancer history was higher (12.3% vs. 8.5%, p = 0.065), and that of currently diagnosed and currently treated cancer was significantly higher in ST cases than controls (3.6% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.021; 3.2% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.037, respectively). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that cancer history was associated with late ST (odds ratio [OR]: 2.80, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.92-8.55, p = 0.071) and very late ST (OR: 2.40, 95% CI: 1.02-5.65, p = 0.046), but not with early ST (OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.51-2.00, p = 0.97). During the median follow-up period of 872 days after the index ST events, patients with cancer history showed a higher mortality than those without, among both ST cases (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.06-3.51, p = 0.031) and controls (HR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.09-3.40, p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

A post hoc analysis of REAL-ST registry revealed that patients with G2-ST had a higher prevalence of currently diagnosed and currently treated cancer. Notably, cancer history was associated with the occurrence of late and very late ST, but not with early ST.

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy and Cancer; Balancing between Ischemic and Bleeding Risk: A Narrative Review

Cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with cancer can be caused by concomitant CV risk factors, cancer itself, and anticancer therapy. Since malignancy can dysregulate the hemostatic system, predisposing cancer patients to both thrombosis and hemorrhage, the administration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to patients with cancer who suffer from acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a clinical challenge to cardiologists. Apart from PCI and ACS, other structural interventions, such as TAVR, PFO-ASD closure, and LAA occlusion, and non-cardiac diseases, such as PAD and CVAs, may require DAPT. The aim of the present review is to review the current literature on the optimal antiplatelet therapy and duration of DAPT for oncologic patients, in order to reduce both the ischemic and bleeding risk in this high-risk population.

Prognosis of acute coronary syndrome stratified by cancer type and status - a nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

To investigated the prognosis of the most prevalent cancers (breast-, gastrointestinal-, and lung cancer), according to cancer status (i.e., active-, non-active-, history of-, and no cancer), following first-time of acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

METHODS

Danish nationwide registers were used to identify patients with first-time ACS from 2000-2018. Patients were stratified according to cancer type and status. Hazard ratios (HR) estimated by adjusted Cox regression models for 1year all-cause mortality reported. Further absolute risks of 1year cardiovascular versus non-cardiovascular death and 30-day cumulative incidence of coronary angiograms (CAG) was estimated, using the Aalen-Johansen non-parametric method, with competing risk of death.

RESULTS

We identified 150,478 (95.7%) with no cancer, 2,370 (1.5%) with history of cancer, 2,712 (1.7%) with non-active cancer and 1,704 (1.1%) with active cancer. Cancer patients were older with more comorbidities than patients with no cancer. When compared with no cancer, we found HRs (95% confidence intervals) of 1.71 (1.44-2.02), 2.47 (2.23-2.73) and 4.22 (3.87-4.60) correspondingly for active breast-, gastrointestinal-, and lung cancer. Increased HRs were also found for non-active cancers, but not for history of cancer. Cardiovascular disease was the leading cause of death in all patients. Among patients with active breast-, gastrointestinal-, and lung cancer 43%, 43%, and 31% underwent CAG, correspondingly, compared with 77% of patients without cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Active- and non-active cancers were associated with an increased 1-year all-cause mortality compared with patients with history of cancer and no cancer. Cardiovascular disease was the leading cause of death; notably CAG was less frequently performed in cancer patients.

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.

Fractional Flow Reserve Cardio-Oncology Effects on Inpatient Mortality, Length of Stay, and Cost Based on Malignancy Type: Machine Learning Supported Nationally Representative Case-Control Study of 30 Million Hospitalizations

Background and Objectives: There are no nationally representative studies of mortality and cost effectiveness for fractional flow reserve (FFR) guided percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with cancer. Our study aims to show how this patient population may benefit from FFR-guided PCI. Materials and Methods: Propensity score matched analysis and backward propagation neural network machine learning supported multivariable regression was performed for inpatient mortality in this case-control study of the 2016 National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Regression results were adjusted for age, race, income, geographic region, metastases, mortality risk, and the likelihood of undergoing FFR versus non-FFR PCI. All analyses were adjusted for the complex survey design to produce nationally representative estimates. Results: Of the 30,195,722 hospitalized patients meeting criteria, 3.37% of the PCIs performed included FFR. In propensity score adjusted multivariable regression, FFR versus non-FFR PCI significantly reduced inpatient mortality (OR 0.47, 95%CI 0.35−0.63; p < 0.001) and length of stay (LOS) (in days; beta −0.23, 95%CI −0.37−−0.09; p = 0.001) while increasing cost (in USD; beta $5708.63, 95%CI, 3042.70−8374.57; p < 0.001), without significantly increasing complications overall. FFR versus non-FFR PCI did not specifically change cancer patients’ inpatient mortality, LOS, or cost. However, FFR versus non-FFR PCI significantly increased inpatient mortality for Hodgkin’s lymphoma (OR 52.48, 95%CI 7.16−384.53; p < 0.001) and rectal cancer (OR 24.38, 95%CI 2.24−265.73; p = 0.009). Conclusions: FFR-guided PCI may be safely utilized in patients with cancer as it does not significantly increase inpatient mortality, complications, and LOS. These findings support the need for an increased utilization of FFR-guided PCI and further studies to evaluate its long-term impact.

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.

In-Hospital Characteristics and 30-Day Readmissions for Acute Myocardial Infarction and Major Bleeding in Patients With Active Cancer

There are limited data on readmission with ischemic and major bleeding events in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with active cancer. The purpose of our study was to evaluate in-hospital characteristics and 30-day readmission rates for recurrent AMI and major bleeding by cancer type in patients with AMI and active cancer. From 2016 through 2018, patients in the Nationwide Readmission Database admitted with AMI and underlying active colon, lung, breast, prostate, and hematological cancers were included. Thirty-day readmission for recurrent AMI and major bleeding were reported. Of 1,524,677 index hospitalizations for AMI, 35,790 patients (2.2%) had cancer (0.9% hematological; 0.5% lung; 0.4% prostate; 0.2% breast; and 0.1% colon). Compared with patients without cancer, patients with cancer were about 6 to 10 years older and had a higher proportion of atrial fibrillation, valvular heart disease, previous stroke, and a greater co-morbidity burden. Of all cancer types, only active breast cancer (adjusted odds ratios 1.82, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.98) was found to be significantly associated with elevated odds of readmission for major bleeding; no such association was observed for recurrent AMI. In conclusion, AMI in patients with breast cancer is associated with significantly greater odds of readmission for major bleeding within 30 days after discharge. Management of patients with concomitant AMI and cancer is challenging but should be based on a multidisciplinary approach and estimation of an individual patient's risk of major coronary thrombotic and bleeding events.

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.

A Concomitant Cancer Diagnosis Is Associated With Poor Cardiovascular Outcomes Among Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients

Background and Aims

With the increasing coexistence of cardiovascular disease and cancer in contemporary clinical practice, studies on the outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with cancer has not been systematically investigated. This study sought to investigated the effect of coexisting cancer on the treatment and clinical outcomes among AMI patients.

Methods

We retrospectively integrated and analyzed cardiovascular data of 6,607 AMI patients between June 2016 and December 2019. Patients with cancer were compared with pair-matched cancer-naive patients. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to compare the differences in outcomes.

Results

Of 6,607 patients, 2.3% (n = 150) had been diagnosed with cancer. Patients with cancer were older (70.3 ± 10.0 vs. 63.9 ± 11.5 years, P < 0.001) and had a higher burden of comorbidities. Moreover, patients with cancer tended to receive clopidogrel (52.0 vs. 40.0%, P = 0.004) rather than ticagrelor (45.6 vs. 58.2%, P = 0.003) than those without cancer. After pairwise matching, patients with cancer were less likely to undergo in-hospital percutaneous coronary intervention (61.3 vs. 70.0%, P = 0.055). And after 3-year follow-up, the cumulative incidence of cardiovascular death (14.0 vs. 8.3%; adjusted HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.11–3.39; P = 0.021) among patients with cancer was significantly higher than that among the matched controls, a similar pattern was observed for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke (16.0 vs. 10.3%; adjusted HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.21–3.26; P = 0.007). Moreover, patients with a historical cancer diagnosis within 5 years had a higher risk of cardiovascular ischemic events.

Conclusions

AMI patients with a concomitant diagnosis of cancer tended to be treated with conservative therapies and were at substantially higher risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

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.

Cardiovascular Safety Assessment in Cancer Drug Development

The development of cardiovascular toxicity attributable to anticancer drugs is a pivotal event that is associated with cardiovascular morbidity as well as with worse cancer-specific and overall outcomes. Although broad consensus exists regarding the importance of cardiovascular safety assessment in cancer drug development, real-world data suggest that cardiovascular events are significantly underestimated in oncology trials. This drug safety discrepancy has profound implications on drug development decisions, risk-benefit evaluation, formulation of surveillance and prevention protocols, and survivorship. In this article, we review the contemporary cardiovascular safety evaluation of new pharmaceuticals in hematology and oncology, spanning from in vitro pharmacodynamic testing to randomized clinical trials. We argue that cardiovascular safety assessment of anticancer drugs should be reformed and propose practical strategies, including development and validation of preclinical assays, expansion of oncology trial eligibility, incorporation of cardiovascular end points in early-phase studies, and design of longitudinal multi-institutional cardiotoxicity registries.

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.

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.