Cancer patients in cardiology: how to communicate with patients with special psychological needs and manage their cardiac problems in daily clinical practice

Adherence to the "Atrial fibrillation Better Care" (ABC) pathway in patients with atrial fibrillation and cancer: A report from the ESC-EHRA EURObservational Research Programme in atrial fibrillation (EORP-AF) General Long-Term Registry

BACKGROUND

Implementation of the Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway is recommended by guidelines on atrial fibrillation (AF), but the impact of adherence to ABC pathway in patients with cancer is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the adherence to ABC pathway and its impact on adverse outcomes in AF patients with cancer.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry were analyzed according to (i) No Cancer; and (ii) Prior or active cancer and stratified in relation to adherence to the ABC pathway. The composite Net Clinical Outcome (NCO) of all-cause death, major adverse cardiovascular events and major bleeding was the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Among 6550 patients (median age 69 years, females 40.1%), 6005 (91.7%) had no cancer, while 545 (8.3%) had a diagnosis of active or prior cancer at baseline, with the proportions of full adherence to ABC pathway of 30.6% and 25.7%, respectively. Adherence to the ABC pathway was associated with a significantly lower occurrence of the primary outcome vs. non-adherence, both in 'no cancer' and 'cancer' patients [adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66-0.92 and aHR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37-0.96, respectively]. Adherence to a higher number of ABC criteria was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome, being lowest when 3 ABC criteria were fulfilled (no cancer: aHR 0.54, 95%CI: 0.36-0.81; with cancer: aHR 0.32, 95% CI 0.13-0.78).

CONCLUSION

In AF patients with cancer enrolled in the EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry, adherence to ABC pathway was sub-optimal. Full adherence to ABC-pathway was associated with a lower risk of adverse events.

Cardiologic Long-Term Follow-Up of Patients Treated With Chest Radiotherapy: When and How?

Introduction: Radiotherapy may cause valvular (VHD), pericardial, coronary artery disease (CAD), left ventricular dysfunction (LVD), arrhythmias. The risk of radiation induced heart disease (RIHD) increases over time. The current guidelines suggest a screening for RIHD every 5 years in the long-term survivors who had been treated by chest RT.

Methods: We reviewed the clinical and instrumental data of 106 patients diagnosed with RIHD. In one group (Group A: 69 patients) RIHD was diagnosed in an asymptomatic phase through a screening with ECG, echocardiogram and stress test. A second group (37 patients) was seen when RIHD was symptomatic. We compared the characteristics of the two groups at the time of RT, of RIHD detection and at last follow-up.

Results: Overall, 64 patients (60%) had CAD (associated to other RIHD in 18); 39 (36.7%) had LVD (isolated in 20); 24 (22.6%) had VHD (isolated in 10 cases). The interval between the last negative test and the diagnosis of moderate or severe RIHD was <5 years in 26 patients, and <4 years in 18. In group A, 63% of the patients with CAD had silent ischemia. The two groups did not differ with regard to type of tumor, cardiovascular risk factors, use of anthracycline-based chemotherapy, age at RT treatment, radiation dose and interval between RT and toxicity detection. The mean time from RT and RIHD was 16 years in group A and 15 in group B. Interventional therapy at RIHD diagnosis was more frequent in group B (54 vs. 30%, p < 0.05). At last follow-up, 27 patients had died (12 of cancer, 9 of cardiac causes, 6 of other causes); mean ejection fraction was 60% in group A and 50% in group B (p < 0.01). Patients with ejection fraction ≤ 50% were 14.5% in group A and 40% in group B (p < 0.01).

Conclusions: Clinically relevant RIHD become evident at a mean interval of 16 years after RT. The most frequent clinical manifestations are CAD and LVD. RIHD diagnosis in asymptomatic patients may preserve their cardiac function with timely interventions. We suggest -after 10 years from radiotherapy- a screening every 2–3 years.

The core components of cardio-oncology rehabilitation

The increased efficacy of cancer therapy has resulted in greater cancer survival and increasing number of people with cancer and cardiovascular diseases. The sharing of risk factors, the bidirectional relationship between cancer and cardiovascular diseases and the cardiotoxic effect of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, are the cause of the rapid expansion of cardio-oncology. All strategies to preserve cardiovascular health and mitigate the negative effect of cancer therapy, by reducing the cardiovascular risk, must be pursued to enable the timely and complete delivery of anticancer therapy and to achieve the longest remission of the disease. Comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation is an easy-to-use model, even in cancer care, and is the basis of Cardio-Oncology REhabilitation (CORE), an exercise-based multi-component intervention. In addition, CORE, besides using the rationale and knowledge of cardiac rehabilitation, can leverage the network of cardiac rehabilitation services to offer to cancer patients exercise programs, control of risk factors, psychological support, and nutrition counseling. The core components of CORE will be discussed, describing the beneficial effect on cardiorespiratory fitness, quality of life, psychological and physical well-being, and weight management. Furthermore, particular attention will be paid to how CORE can counterbalance the negative effect of therapies in those at heightened cardiovascular risk after a cancer diagnosis. Barriers for implementation, including personal, family, social and of the health care system barriers for a widespread diffusion of the CORE will also be discussed. Finally, there will be a call-to-action, for randomized clinical trials that can test the impact of CORE, on morbidity and mortality.