Prevalence and outcome of patients with cancer and acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a BleeMACS substudy

Antithrombotic Therapy in Cancer Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases: Daily Practice Recommendations by the Hemostasis Working Party of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) and the Society for Thrombosis and Hemostasis Research (GTH e.V.)

Active cancer by itself but also chemotherapy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and especially coronary artery disease (CAD) and atrial fibrillation (AF). The frequency of CVD, CAD, and AF varies depending on comorbidities (particularly in older patients), cancer type, and stage, as well as the anticancer therapeutic being taken. Many reports exist for anticancer drugs being associated with CVD, CAD, and AF, but robust data are often lacking. Because of this, each patient needs an individual structured approach concerning thromboembolic and bleeding risk, drug-drug interactions, as well as patient preferences to evaluate the need for anticoagulation therapy and targeting optimal symptom control. Interruption of specific cancer therapy should be avoided to reduce the potential risk of cancer progression. Nevertheless, additional factors like thrombocytopenia and anticoagulation in the elderly and frail patient with cancer cause additional challenges which need to be addressed in daily clinical management. Therefore, the aim of these recommendations is to summarize the available scientific data on antithrombotic therapy (both antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy) in cancer patients with CVD and in cases of missing data providing guidance for optimal careful decision-making in daily routine.

Impact of Cancer, Inflammation, and No Standard Risk Factors in Patients With Myocardial Infarction

Background

The lack of standard modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (SMuRFs), including hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and smoking, is reportedly associated with poor outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Among patients with no SMuRFs, cancer and chronic systemic inflammatory diseases (CSIDs) may be major etiologies of AMI.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with cancer, CSIDs, and no SMuRFs in AMI.

Methods

This multicenter registry included 2,480 patients with AMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were divided into 4 groups: active cancer, CSIDs, no SMuRFs, and those remaining. The coprimary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleeding events, during hospitalization and after discharge.

Results

Of 2,480 patients, 104 (4.2%), 94 (3.8%), and 120 (4.8%) were grouped as cancer, CSIDs, and no SMuRFs, respectively. During the hospitalization, MACE rates were highest in the no SMuRFs group, followed by the cancer, CSIDs, and SMuRFs groups (22.5% vs 15.4% vs 12.8% vs 10.2%; P < 0.001), whereas bleeding risks were highest in the cancer group, followed by the no SMuRFs, CSIDs, and SMuRFs groups (15.4% vs 10.8% vs 7.5% vs 4.9%; P < 0.001). After discharge, the rates of MACE (33.3% vs 22.7% vs 11.3% vs 9.2%; P < 0.001) and bleeding events (8.6% vs 6.7% vs 3.8% vs 2.9%; P = 0.01) were higher in the cancer group than in the CSIDs, no SMuRFs, and SMuRFs groups.

Conclusions

Patients with active cancer, CSIDs, and no SMuRFs differently had worse outcomes after AMI in ischemic and bleeding endpoints during hospitalization and/or after discharge, compared with those with SMuRFs.

Socioeconomic and Ethnic Disparities in the Process of Care and Outcomes Among Cancer Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome

Cancer and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are the leading causes of morbidity and mortality globally, with many shared risk factors. There are several challenges to the management of patients with cancer presenting with ACS, owing to their higher baseline risk profile, the complexities of their cancer-related therapies and prognosis, and their higher risk of adverse outcomes after ACS. Although previous studies have demonstrated disparities in the care of both cancer and ACS among patients from ethnic minorities and socioeconomic deprivation, there is limited evidence around the magnitude of such disparities specifically in cancer patients presenting with ACS. This review summarises the current literature on differences in prevalence and management of ACS among patients with cancer from ethnic minorities and socioeconomically deprived backgrounds, as well as the gaps in evidence around the care of this high-risk population and potential solutions.

Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease: The Conjoined Twins

Cancer and cardiovascular disease are the two most common causes of death worldwide. As the fields of cardiovascular medicine and oncology continue to expand, the area of overlap is becoming more prominent demanding dedicated attention and individualized patient care. We have come to realize that both fields are inextricably intertwined in several aspects, so much so that the mere presence of one, with its resultant downstream implications, has an impact on the other. Nonetheless, cardiovascular disease and cancer are generally approached independently. The focus that is granted to the predominant pathological entity (either cardiovascular disease or cancer), does not allow for optimal medical care for the other. As a result, ample opportunities for improvement in overall health care are being overlooked. Herein, we hope to shed light on the interconnected relationship between cardiovascular disease and cancer and uncover some of the unintentionally neglected intricacies of common cardiovascular therapeutics from an oncologic standpoint.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Proportion and number of incident cancer deaths in coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Globally, coronary artery disease (CAD) and cancer are the leading causes of death. Studies focusing on the proportion and spectrum of cancer mortality among CAD patients are lacking. We aim to characterize the proportion and spectrum of cancer-specific mortality among patients with CAD.

METHODS

We analyzed 93,797 hospitalized survivors with angiographically documented CAD between 2007 and 2020 (mean age: 62.8 ± 11.1 years, 24.7% female) from Cardiorenal ImprovemeNt II (CIN-II) cohort.

RESULTS

During the median follow-up of 4.8 years (IQR: 2.6-7.5), 13,162 (14.0%) patients died after discharge. A total of 1223/7703 (15.8% of cause-specific death) CAD patients died of cancer. The three most common types of cancer-specific death were lung (36.1%), liver (13.3%), and colorectum cancer (12.8%). Furthermore, male (adjusted HR 2.38, 95% CI: 1.99-2.85) and older (≥60 vs. <60 years, adjusted HR 3.25, 95%CI 2.72-3.88) patients had a significantly increased cancer-specific mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that nearly one-sixth of death is accounted for cancer among CAD patients within a median follow-up of 4.8 years. Lung, liver, and colorectum cancer are top three cancer-specific mortality. Further studies are needed to reduce cancer mortality for CAD patients, especially in older and male ones.

TRAIL REGISTRATION

(ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05050877).

Comparisons of drug-eluting balloon versus drug-eluting stent for the treatment of cancer patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Treatment for cancer patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains challenging. The objective of the study was to investigate the safety and efficiency of drug eluting balloon (DEB) versus drug eluting stent (DES) in this high-risk group.

METHODS

Between 1st January 2017 and 1st January 2022, cancer patients admitted to Beijing Chaoyang Hospital with AMI were retrospectively enrolled. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE). The secondary endpoints included major bleeding events, heart failure and cardiac complications.

RESULTS

A total of 164 cancer patients presenting with AMI were included in the final analysis. Patients treated with DEB had a numerically lower rate of MACE than those treated with DES during a median follow-up of 21.8 months (22.9% vs. 37.1%, p = 0.23). Patients treated with DEB had a trend towards lower rate of major bleeding events than patients treated with DES (6.3% vs. 18.1%, HR 2.96, 95% CI [0.88, 9.92], p = 0.08). There were no significant differences between the two groups with regards to the rate of heart failure (4.2% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.32) and cardiac complications (0.0% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.56).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that in cancer patients with AMI, DEB had a trend towards lower rate of major bleeding events and a numerically lower rate of MACE compared with DES.

Vascular Inflammation, Cancer, and Cardiovascular Diseases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cancer and cardiovascular disease are among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the USA. Cancer and cardiovascular disease have inflammatory underpinnings that have been associated with both the development and progression of these disease states.

RECENT FINDINGS

Inflammatory signaling has been found to be a critical event in both cardiovascular disease and cancer formation and progression. Further, many chemotherapeutic agents potentiate inflammation exacerbating existing cardiovascular disease or leading to its presence. The exact mechanisms of these interactions remain poorly understood. The proinflammatory milieu observed in both cancer and cardiovascular disease likely plays an important role in the development and potentiation of both conditions. Further evaluation of this relationship will be critical in the development of new diagnostic and therapeutic modalities.

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.

Interventional Cardio-Oncology: Unique Challenges and Considerations in a High-Risk Population

OPINION STATEMENT

Patients with cancer are at risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) including atherosclerotic heart disease (AHD), valvular heart disease (VHD), and atrial fibrillation (AF). Advances in percutaneous catheter-based treatments, including percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for AHD, percutaneous valve replacement or repair for VHD, and ablation and left atrial appendage occlusion devices (LAAODs) for AF, have provided patients with CVD significant benefit in the recent decades. However, trials and registries investigating outcomes of these procedures often exclude patients with cancer. As a result, patients with cancer are less likely to undergo these therapies despite their benefits. Despite the inclusion of cancer patients in randomized clinical trial data, studies suggest that cancer patients derive similar benefits of percutaneous therapies for CVD compared with patients without cancer. Therefore, percutaneous interventions for CVD should not be withheld in patients with cancer, as they may still benefit from these procedures.

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.

Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Cancer

Purpose of review

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

Recent findings

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

Summary

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

Cardiovascular outcomes in patients with cancer during a 5-year follow-up: Results from a French administrative database

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available regarding the optimal management and prognosis of patients with cancer who develop an acute myocardial infarction.

AIM

The objective of this study was to analyse the characteristics and outcomes of patients according to cancer and myocardial infarction occurrence.

METHODS

Based on the French administrative hospital discharge database, the study collected information for all consecutive patients seen in French hospitals in 2013, excluding those with a history of myocardial infarction. The population was divided into two groups according to their history of cancer. We studied the following outcomes: all-cause and cardiovascular mortality; acute myocardial infarction; and ischaemic stroke. Data were collected after a 5-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Between 2013 and 2019, 3,381,472 patients were seen in French hospitals; among them, 3,323,757 had no history of myocardial infarction. Patients with a history of cancer (n=497,593) had higher incidences of all-cause mortality (17.82%/year vs 3.79%/year), cardiovascular mortality (1.61%/year vs 1.17%/year), myocardial infarction (0.82%/year vs 0.61%/year) and ischaemic stroke (0.91%/year vs 0.62%/year) compared with patients without cancer (n=2,826,164). After performing an adjusted competing-risk analysis, the cumulative incidence of acute myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death and ischaemic stroke incidence was found to be lower in patients with a history of cancer, whereas death of non-cardiac origin was more prevalent in patients with a history of cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

In this observational study, we have shown that patients with cancer have a higher incidence of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction. However, multivariable analysis showed a lower cumulative incidence of these events.

The new 2022 ESC Guidelines on Cardio-oncology and their impact on the Acute Cardiovascular Care Society

In this perspective piece on the recently published ESC Guidelines on Cardio-oncology and the Consensus Statements from the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association, we summarize key learning points regarding the management of acute cardiovascular disease in patients with cancer. This document outlines where other pre-existing ESC Guidelines can be applied to the management of acute cardiovascular disease in patients with cancer while simultaneously highlighting important gaps in knowledge that require further research.

Cancer and cardiovascular disease share common risk factors and often co-exist, especially in older patients. In addition, patients with cancer undergoing active treatment are exposed to multiple, potentially cardiotoxic drugs, which may manifest as a variety of cardiovascular events, including left-ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure, arrhythmias, hypertension, or acute venous and arterial vascular events.

Knowledge about potential causative cancer therapeutics is necessary for rapid recognition and management to improve cardiovascular outcomes and guide ongoing cancer treatment. Specifically, the importance of rapidly interrupting culprit cancer drugs is highlighted, as well as instituting standard guideline-based therapies for conditions such as acute heart failure and acute coronary syndromes [ST-elevation myocardial infarction and high-risk non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS)]. Given the high prevalence of thrombocytopenia and increased bleeding risk in patients with cancer, we are provided with platelet cut-offs for the use of different antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants for patients with ACS and atrial arrhythmias. In contrast, given the hypercoagulable milieu of cancer, we are provided information regarding types of anticoagulants, drug–drug interactions, and duration of anticoagulation in patients with acute venous thromboembolism, as well as for atrial fibrillation. They also discuss the diagnostic and treatment strategies for the unique cardiotoxicities seen with novel cancer therapeutics such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric receptor antigen T-cell therapy. Last, but not least, the authors emphasize that the care of these patients requires close collaboration between cardiology and oncology to maximize both cardiovascular and cancer outcomes.

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.

Post-Cardiac Arrest PCI is Underutilized Among Cancer Patients: Machine Learning Augmented Nationally Representative Case-Control Study of 30 Million Hospitalizations

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients are less likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after cardiac arrest, although they demonstrate improved mortality benefit from the procedure. We produced the largest nationally representative analysis of mortality of cardiac arrest and PCI for patients with cancer versus non-cancer.

METHODS

Propensity score adjusted multivariable regression for mortality was performed in this case-control study of the United States' largest all-payer hospitalized dataset, the 2016 National Inpatient Sample. Regression models of mortality and PCI weighted by the complex survey design were fully adjusted for age, race, income, cancer metastases, NIS-calculated mortality risk by Diagnosis Related Group (DRG), acute coronary syndrome, and likelihood of undergoing PCI RESULTS: Of the 30,195,722 hospitalized adult patients, 15.43% had cancer, and 0.79% of the whole sample presented with cardiac arrest (of whom 20.57% underwent PCI). In fully adjusted regression analysis among patients with cardiac arrest, PCI significantly reduced mortality (OR 0.15, 95%CI 0.13-0.19; p<0.001) among patients with cancer greater than those without it (OR 0.21, 95%CI 0.20-0.23; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This nationally representative study suggests that post-cardiac arrest PCI is underutilized among patients with cancer despite its significant mortality reduction for such patients (independent of clinical acuity).

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.

Clinical Characteristics and Long-Term Outcomes of Patients With Differing Haemoglobin Levels Undergoing Semi-Urgent and Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in an Asian Population

Introduction

This study aimed to investigate the impact of anaemia on long-term clinical outcomes in patients who underwent semi-urgent and elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in an Asian population. Although the effects of anaemia on outcomes in Asian patients are well studied for acute coronary syndrome, its impact on Asian patients undergoing semi-urgent and elective PCI is unclear.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent semi-urgent and elective PCI from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015, at a tertiary academic centre. A total of 1,685 patients were included. They were stratified into three groups: normal (≥12 g/dL), intermediate (10–11.9 g/dL), and low (<10 g/dL) haemoglobin levels. Demographics, risk factors, and end-points including the 5-point major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (all-cause death, subsequent stroke, myocardial infarction, congestive cardiac failure, and target lesion revascularisation), cardiovascular death, and bleeding events were analysed.

Results

Patients in intermediate and low haemoglobin level groups were older with more comorbidities. Compared to the normal haemoglobin level group, low haemoglobin level group patients were associated with an increased risk of composite endpoints of all-cause death, subsequent stroke, myocardial infarction, congestive cardiac failure, and target lesion revascularisation [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI):1.22, 2.92; p = 0.004]. This was driven by the increased risk of target lesions revascularisation observed in the low haemoglobin level group compared to the normal haemoglobin level group (aHR 17.74, 95% CI: 1.74, 180.80; p = 0.015). The patients in the low haemoglobin level group were also associated with a higher risk of bleeding events compared to the normal haemoglobin level group (aHR 7.18, 95% CI: 1.13, 45.40; p = 0.036).

Conclusion

In our Asian cohort, patients with anaemia undergoing PCI were associated with a higher comorbid burden. Despite adjustments for comorbidities, these patients had higher mortality and worse cardiovascular outcomes following contemporary PCI.

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.

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.

Cancer-Associated Atherothrombosis: The Challenge

The association between venous thrombosis and malignancy, having typical features of a paraneoplastic syndrome, has been established for a century. Currently, it is recognized that arterial thromboembolism (ATE) may also behave as a paraneoplastic syndrome. Recent matched cohort studies, systematic reviews, and observational studies concur in showing an increased incidence of acute coronary events, ischemic stroke, accelerated peripheral arterial disease, and in-stent thrombosis during the 6-month period before cancer diagnosis, peaking for 30 days immediately before cancer diagnosis. Cancer patients with ATE are at higher risk of in-hospital and long-term mortality as compared with noncancer patients. In the present review, we focus on the epidemiology, clinical variants and presentation, morbidity, mortality, primary and secondary prevention, and treatment of cancer-associated ATE. The awareness that cancer can be a risk factor for ATE and that cancer therapy can initiate cardiovascular complications make it mandatory to identify high-risk patients, modify preexistent cardiovascular risk factors, and adopt effective antithrombotic prophylaxis. For ATE prophylaxis, modifiable patient-related risk factors and oncology treatment-related factors are levers for intervention. Statins and platelet antiaggregants have been studied, but their efficacy for prevention of cancer-associated ATE remains to be demonstrated. Results of revascularization procedures for cancer-associated ATE are worse than for ATE in noncancer patients. It is important that a multidisciplinary approach is adopted for making informed decisions, by involving the vascular surgeon, interventional radiologist, oncologist, and palliative medicine, as well as the patients and their family.

Common Pathophysiology in Cancer, Atrial Fibrillation, Atherosclerosis, and Thrombosis: JACC: CardioOncology State-of-the-Art Review

Cardiovascular disease and cancer are the 2 leading causes of death worldwide. Emerging evidence suggests common mechanisms between cancer and cardiovascular disease, including atrial fibrillation and atherosclerosis. With advances in cancer therapies, screening, and diagnostics, cancer-specific survival and outcomes have improved. This increase in survival has led to the coincidence of cardiovascular disease, including atrial fibrillation and atherosclerosis, as patients with cancer live longer. Additionally, cancer and cardiovascular disease share several risk factors and underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, including inflammation, cancer-related factors including treatment effects, and alterations in platelet function. Patients with cancer are at increased risk for bleeding and thrombosis compared with the general population. Although optimal antithrombotic therapy, including agent choice and duration, has been extensively studied in the general population, this area remains understudied in patients with cancer despite their altered thrombotic and bleeding risk. Future investigation, including incorporation of cancer-specific characteristics to traditional thrombotic and bleeding risk scores, clinical trials in the cancer population, and the development of novel antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory strategies on the basis of shared pathophysiologic mechanisms, is warranted to improve outcomes in this patient population.

Impact of Active and Historical Cancer on Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

Patients with cancer have an increased risk of cardiovascular events including myocardial infarction (MI) and vice versa, and are at high risks of ischemic and bleeding events after MI. However, short- and long-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute MI based on cancer status are not fully understood. This bi-center registry included 903 patients with acute MI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention in a contemporary setting. Patients were divided into active cancer, a history of cancer, and no cancer according to the status of malignancy. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, recurrent MI, and stroke, and major bleedings were evaluated. Of 903 patients, 49 (5.4%) and 65 (7.2%) had active cancer and a history of cancer, and 87 (9.6%) patients died during the hospitalization. In-hospital MACE was not significantly different among the 3 groups (16.3% vs 10.8% vs 10.9%, p = 0.48), whereas the rate of major bleeding events during the index hospitalization was significantly higher in patients with active cancer than their counterpart (20.4% vs 6.2% vs 5.8%, p = 0.002). After discharge, patients with active cancer had an increased risk of MACE and major bleedings compared with those with a history of cancer and no cancer during the mean follow-up period of 853 days. In conclusions, active cancer rather than a history of cancer and no cancer had significant impact on in-hospital bleeding events, and MACE and major bleedings after discharge in patients with acute MI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Original Research: Long-Term Prognosis After ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients with a Prior Cancer Diagnosis

Introduction

It is unknown how long-term prognosis after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients with a prior cancer diagnosis is impacted by cancer-related factors as diagnosis, stage, and treatment. We aimed to assess long-term survival trends after STEMI in this population to evaluate both cardiovascular and cancer-related drivers of prognosis over a follow-up period of 5 years.

Methods

In this retrospective single-center cohort study, patients with a prior cancer diagnosis admitted with STEMI between 2004 and 2014 and treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were recruited from the STEMI clinical registry of our institution.

Results

In the 211 included patients, the cumulative incidence of all-cause death after 5 years of follow-up was 38.1% (N = 60). The cause of death was predominantly malignancy-related (N = 29, 48.3% of deaths) and nine patients (15.0%) died of a cardiovascular cause. After correcting for age and sex, a recent cancer diagnosis (< 1 year relative to > 10 years, HR_adj 2.98 [95% CI: 1.39–6.41], p = 0.005) and distant metastasis at presentation (HR_adj 4.02 [1.70–9.53], p = 0.002) were significant predictors of long-term mortality. While maximum levels of cardiac troponin-T and creatinine kinase showed significant association with mortality (resp. HR_adj 1.34 [1.08–1.66], p = 0.008; HR_adj 1.36 [1.05–1.76], p = 0.019), other known determinants of prognosis after STEMI, e.g., hypertension and renal insufficiency, were not significantly associated with survival.

Conclusions

Patients with a prior cancer diagnosis admitted with STEMI have a poor survival rate. However, when the STEMI is optimally treated with primary PCI and medication, cardiac mortality is low, and prognosis is mainly determined by factors related to cancer stage.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40119-021-00244-4.

Acute coronary syndrome in patients with cancer: features of the course and the possibility of predicting hospital and long-term (6 months) periods using GDF-15, NT-proBNP, hs-CRP biomarkers

Aim    To evaluate clinical features of the course of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with oncological diseases (OD) and to determine the role of biomarkers GDF-15, NT-proBNP, and hs-CRP in short-term and long-term prognoses.Material and methods    In 88 patients (34 patients with ACS and OD and 54 patients with ACS without OD), complaints and historical, objective, and laboratory and instrumental data were evaluated and blood concentrations of GDF-15, NT-proBNP, and hs-CRP biomarkers were measured on the first day of hospitalization. Incidence of cardiovascular complications (CVC) and outcomes of hospital and long-term (6 months) periods were analyzed. Statistical analysis of results was performed with the Statistica 12.0, MedCalc 19.1.7 software. The level of statistical significance was р&lt;0.05.Results    In the ACS+OD group as compared to the ACS without OD group, the onset of disease was mostly atypical, with shortness of breath and/or general weakness; the ACS+OD patients more frequently had III-IV Killip class acute heart failure (29 and 7 %, р=0.01); mean hemoglobin concentration (125.6±27.9 and 141±16.6 g/l, р=0.003), prothrombin index (76.4±15.2 and 84.9±17.6 %, р=0.003), and left ventricular ejection fraction (47.7±6.1 and 50.7±7.2 %, р=0.02) were lower; and median concentrations of GDF-15 (1.95 [1.3; 2.8] and 1.45 [1.2; 2.0] ng/ml, р=0.03), NT-proBNP (947.3 [517.8; 1598.2], and 491.1 [85.1; 1069.1] pg/ml, р=0.006), and hs-CRP (14.1 [8.15; 36.75] and 7.8 [4.4; 16.2] mg/l, р=0.01) were higher. The presence of OD was associated with development of CVC, including urgent endpoints in the long-term and also increased the probability of fatal outcome within 6 months after discharge from the hospital. To predict the risk of CVC in patients with ACS and OD, two models with high prognostic values (AUC&gt;0.9) were proposed. In the long-term, the value of NT-proBNP (cut-off point &gt;524.5 pg/ml) was a statistically significant predictor for development of endpoints with a high predictive value (AUC&gt;0.8).Conclusion    The features of the clinical course of ACS in patients with OD indicate the importance of isolating such patients into a separate group. Additional use of the developed models, along with a standard risk assessment by the GRACE scale, will allow individualized management of patients with ACS and OD during the hospital and long-term (6 months) periods.

Evaluation and management of cancer patients presenting with acute cardiovascular disease: a Consensus Document of the Acute CardioVascular Care (ACVC) association and the ESC council of Cardio-Oncology-Part 1: acute coronary syndromes and acute pericardial diseases

Advances in treatment, common cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and the ageing of the population have led to an increasing number of cancer patients presenting with acute CV diseases. These events may be related to the cancer itself or the cancer treatment. Acute cardiac care specialists must be aware of these acute CV complications and be able to manage them. This may require an individualized and multidisciplinary approach. We summarize the most common acute CV complications of cytotoxic, targeted, and immune-based therapies. This is followed by a proposal for a multidisciplinary approach where acute cardiologists work close together with the treating oncologists, haematologists, and radiation specialists, especially in situations where immediate therapeutic decisions are needed. In this first part, we further focus on the management of acute coronary syndromes and acute pericardial diseases in patients with cancer.

Impact of cancer diagnosis on causes and outcomes of 5.9 million US patients with cardiovascular admissions

INTRODUCTION

There are limited data on causes of cardiovascular (CV) admissions and associated outcomes among patients with different cancers.

METHODS

All CV admissions from the US National Inpatient Sample between October 2015 to December 2017 were stratified by cancer type as well as metastatic status. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine the adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of in-hospital mortality in different groups.

RESULTS

From 5,936,014 eligible CV admissions, cancer was present in 265,221 (4.5%) hospitalizations. There was significant variation in the admission diagnoses among the different cancers, with hematological malignancies being principally associated with heart failure (HF), lung cancer with atrial fibrillation (AF), and colorectal and prostate cancer with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Admission with haemorrhagic stroke has the highest associated mortality across cancers (20.0-38.4%). In-hospital mortality was higher in cancer than non-cancer patients across most CV admissions (P < 0.001) with AF having the worst prognosis. Compared to group without any cancer, the greatest aOR of mortality was associated with lung cancer in AMI (aOR 2.32, 95% CI 2.18-2.47), ischemic stroke (aOR 2.21, 95%CI 2.08-2.34), AF (aOR 4.69, 95%CI 4.32-5.10) and HF (aOR 2.07, 95%CI 1.89-2.27).

CONCLUSIONS

The most common causes of CV admission to hospital vary in patients with different types of cancer, with AMI being most common in patients with colon cancer, HF in patients with hematological malignancies and AF in patients with lung cancer. Patients with cancer, particularly lung cancer, have greater mortality than non-cancer patients after admissions with a CV cause.

Morphological Plaque Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and a Cancer History

Background

Although patients with a cancer history have a 2 to 3 times higher risk for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the morphological characteristics of ACS culprit plaque in those patients and their relations with clinical outcomes remain unknown.

Methods and Results

This retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study included consecutive patients with ACS who underwent optical coherence tomography‐guided emergent percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were categorized into those without a cancer history, those with a cancer history, and those currently receiving cancer treatment. ACS culprit lesions were classified as plaque rupture, plaque erosion, or calcified nodule using optical coherence tomography. Plaque erosion frequency was significantly higher in culprit lesions of patients with current cancer and patients with cancer history than in those of patients without cancer history (56.3% versus 61.7% versus 36.5%). Calcified nodule incidence was significantly higher in patients without cancer history than in patients with current cancer and patients without cancer history (patients with current cancer: 12.4% versus patients without cancer history: 25.5% versus patients without cancer history: 12.6%, P<0.001). Cancer history was independently associated with nonplaque rupture (plaque erosion or calcified nodule) in ACS culprit lesions (odds ratio, 4.00; P<0.001). Cancer history was independently associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.98; P=0.002). Nonplaque rupture in ACS culprit lesions was independently associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (HR, 1.60; P=0.011).

Conclusions

Patients with a cancer history had significantly worse clinical outcomes after ACS than those without a cancer history. Those with a cancer history had significantly higher plaque erosion and calcified nodule incidences in the ACS culprit lesions, which might partly explain their worse clinical outcomes.

Registration

URL: www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm. Unique Identifier: UMIN000038442.

Alkaline phosphatase-to-albumin ratio as a novel predictor of long-term adverse outcomes in coronary artery disease patients who underwent PCI

Background: Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and albumin (ALB) have been shown to be associated with coronary artery disease (CAD), and it has been reported that alkaline phosphatase-to-albumin ratio (AAR) is associated with the liver damage and poorer prognosis of patients with digestive system malignancy. Moreover, several previous studies showed that there was a higher incidence of malignancy in CAD patients. However, to our knowledge, the relationship between AAR and long-term adverse outcomes in CAD patients after undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been investigated. Therefore, we aim to access the relation between AAR and long-term adverse outcomes in post-PCI patients with CAD.

Methods: A total of 3378 post-PCI patients with CAD were enrolled in the retrospective Clinical Outcomes and Risk Factors of Patients with Coronary Heart Disease after PCI (CORFCHD-ZZ) study from January 2013 to December 2017. The median duration of follow-up was 37.59 ± 22.24 months. The primary end point was long-term mortality including all-cause mortality (ACM) and cardiac mortality (CM). The secondary end points were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs).

Results: Kaplan–Meier analyses showed that an increased AAR was positively correlated with incidences of long-term ACM (log-rank, P=0.014), CM (log-rank, P=0.011), MACEs (log-rank, P=0.013) and MACCEs (log-rank, P=0.006). Multivariate Cox regression analyses showed that the elevated AAR was an independent predictor of long-term ACM (adjusted HR = 1.488 [1.031–2.149], P=0.034), CM (adjusted HR = 1.837 [1.141–2.959], P=0.012), MACEs (adjusted HR = 1.257 [1.018–1.551], P=0.033) and MACCEs (adjusted HR = 1.237 [1.029–1.486], P=0.024).

Conclusion: An elevated AAR is a novel independent predictor of long-term adverse outcomes in CAD patients following PCI.

Prevalence, clinical characteristics, and impact of active cancer in patients with acute myocardial infarction: data from an all-comer registry

BACKGROUND

Although a history of cancer is a poor prognostic factor in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the clinical importance of coexisting active cancer remains unclear.

METHODS

In this single-center retrospective study, we reviewed an AMI registry and assessed the prevalence and predictors of active cancer, 1-year incidence of cardiac death or major bleeding events (defined as a Bleeding Academy Research Consortium type 3 or 5), and the impact of coexisting active cancer on clinical outcomes. Active cancer was defined as either an already-diagnosed or undiagnosed occult cancer.

RESULTS

Between January 2012 and December 2017, 1140 AMI patients (median age, 69 years; male, 76.0%) were enrolled. Active and historical cancers were diagnosed in 63 patients (5.5%) and 50 patients (4.4%), respectively. The most common location was the urinary tract (n=21). In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, the active cancer group had a higher incidence of 1-year cardiac death (17.5% vs. 5.3%, p < 0.001) and major bleeding events (19.0% vs. 5.6%, p < 0.001) than the non-cancer group. In the multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models, active cancer was an independent predictor of both cardiac death and major bleeding at 1 year. Specifically, gastrointestinal tract and advanced-stage cancers had the poorest outcomes. Compared to the non-cancer group, the 1-year major bleeding rate was higher for all cancer types and stages. In contrast, early-stage cancers had a weaker impact on the 1-year cardiac mortality compared to advanced-stage cancers. Similarly, cardiac death during 1-year also occurred less frequently in occult cancers than in already-known cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AMI, coexisting active cancer was rare, but it significantly impacted cardiac death and major bleeding events.

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.

Multicentre cohort study of the impact of percutaneous coronary intervention on patients with concurrent cancer and ischaemic heart disease

Background

The incidence of concurrent cancer and ischaemic heart disease (IHD) is increasing; however, the long-term patient prognoses remain unclear.

Methods

Five-year all-cause mortality data pertaining to patients in the Osaka Cancer Registry, who were diagnosed with colorectal, lung, prostate, and gastric cancers between 2010 and 2015, were retrieved and analysed together with linked patient administrative data. Patient characteristics (cancer type, stage, and treatment; coronary risk factors; medications; and time from cancer diagnosis to index admission for percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or IHD diagnosis) were adjusted for propensity score matching. Three groups were identified: patients who underwent PCI within 3 years of cancer diagnosis (n = 564, PCI + group), patients diagnosed with IHD within 3 years of cancer diagnosis who did not undergo PCI (n = 3058, PCI-/IHD + group), and patients without IHD (n = 27,392, PCI-/IHD- group). Kaplan–Meier analysis was used for comparisons.

Results

After propensity score matching, the PCI + group had better prognosis (n = 489 in both groups, hazard ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.51–0.81, P < 0.001) than the PCI-/IHD + group. PCI + patients (n = 282) had significantly higher mortality than those without IHD (n = 280 in each group, hazard ratio 2.88, 95% confidence interval 1.90–4.38, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

PCI might improve the long-term prognosis in cancer patients with IHD. However, these patients could have significantly worse long-term prognosis than cancer patients without IHD. Since the present study has some limitations, further research will be needed on this important topic in cardio-oncology.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-021-01968-w.

Temporal trends in short and long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions among cancer patients

While mortality of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is known to have steadily decline over the last decades, data are lacking regarding the complex sub-population of patients with both coronary artery disease and cancer. A large single-center percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) registry was used to retrieve patients who had a known diagnosis of malignancy during PCI. Patients were divided into two groups according to the period in which PCI was performed (period 1: 2006-2011, period 2: 2012-2017). Cox regression hazard models were implemented to compare primary endpoint, defined as the composite outcomes of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (which include cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization) and secondary endpoint of all-cause mortality, between the two time periods. A total of 3286 patients were included, 1819 (55%) had undergone PCI in period 1, and 1467 (45%) in period 2. Both short- and long-term MACE and overall mortality were significantly lower in patients who underwent PCI at the latter period (2.3% vs. 4.3%, p < 0.001 and 1.1% vs. 3.2%, p < 0.001 after 30 days and 24% vs. 30%, p < 0.001 and 12% vs. 22%, p < 0.001 after 2 years, respectively). However, in a multivariate analysis, going through PCI in the latter period was still associated with lower rates of overall mortality (HR 0.708, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.93, p = 0.014) but there was no significant difference in MACE (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-1.42, p = 0.16). Patients with cancer undergoing PCI during our most contemporary period had an improved overall survival, but no significant differences were observed in the composite cardiovascular endpoints, compared to an earlier PCI period. The management of coronary patients with cancer disease remains challenging.

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.

The Pharmacological Approach to Oncologic Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

Among acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients, 15% have concomitant cancer, especially in the first 6 months after their diagnosis, as well as in advanced metastatic stages. Lung, gastric, and pancreatic cancers are the most frequent malignancies associated with ACS. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy exert prothrombotic, vasospastic, and proinflammatory actions. The management of cancer patients with ACS is quite challenging: percutaneous revascularization is often underused, and antiplatelet and anticoagulant pharmacological therapy should be individually tailored to the thrombotic risk and to the bleeding complications. Sometimes oncological patients also show different degrees of thrombocytopenia, which further complicates the pharmacological strategies. The aim of this review is to summarize the current evidence regarding the treatment of ACS in cancer patients and to suggest the optimal management and therapy to reduce the risk of adverse coronary events after ACS in this high-risk population.