Management of CAD in Patients with Active Cancer: the Interventional Cardiologists' Perspective

Outcomes of ST elevation myocardial infarction in patients with cancer: a nationwide study

AIMS

To assess processes of care and clinical outcomes in cancer patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) according to cancer type.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a national population-based study of patients admitted with STEMI in the UK between January 2005 and March 2019. Data were obtained from the National Heart Attack Myocardial Infarction National Audit Project (MINAP) registry and the Hospital Episode Statistics registry. We identified 353 448 STEMI-indexed admissions between 2005 and 2019. Of those, 8581 (2.4%) had active cancer. Prostate cancer (29% of STEMI patients with cancer) was the most common cancer followed by haematologic malignancies (14%) and lung cancer (13%). Cancer patients were less likely to receive invasive coronary revascularization (60.0% vs. 71.6%, P < 0.001] and had higher in-hospital death [odd ratio (OR) 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-1.54] and bleeding (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.03-1.46). Cancer patients had higher mortality at 30 days (HR 2.39, 95% CI 2.19-2.62) and 1 year (HR 3.73, 95% CI 3.58-3.89). Lung cancer was the cancer associated with the highest risk of death in the hospital (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.39-2.22) and at 1 year (OR 8.08, 95% CI 7.44-8.78). Colon cancer (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.24-3.14) was the main cancer associated with major bleeding. All common cancer types were associated with higher mortality at 1 year. Cardiovascular death (62%) was the main cause of death in the first 30 days, while cancer (52%) was the main cause of death within 1 year.

CONCLUSION

STEMI patients with cancer have a higher risk of short- and long-term mortality, particularly lung cancer. Colon cancer is the main cancer associated with major bleeding. Cardiovascular disease was the main cause of death in the first month, whereas cancer was the main cause of death within 1 year.

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.

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.

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.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Gynecological Cancer: Machine Learning-Augmented Propensity Score Mortality and Cost Analysis for 383,760 Patients

Background

Despite the growing number of patients with both coronary artery disease and gynecological cancer, there are no nationally representative studies of mortality and cost effectiveness for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and this cancer type.

Methods

Backward propagation neural network machine learning supported and propensity score adjusted multivariable regression was conducted for the above outcomes in this case-control study of the 2016 National Inpatient Sample (NIS), the United States' largest all-payer hospitalized dataset. Regression models were fully adjusted for age, race, income, geographic region, cancer metastases, mortality risk, and the likelihood of undergoing PCI (and also with length of stay [LOS] for cost). Analyses were also adjusted for the complex survey design to produce nationally representative estimates. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-based cost effectiveness ratio (CER) analysis was performed.

Results

Of the 30,195,722 hospitalized patients meeting criteria, 1.27% had gynecological cancer of whom 0.02% underwent PCI including 0.04% with metastases. In propensity score adjusted regression among all patients, the interaction of PCI and gynecological cancer (vs. not having PCI) significantly reduced mortality (OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.36–0.77; p = 0.001) while increasing LOS (Beta 1.16 days, 95%CI 0.57–1.75; p &lt; 0.001) and total cost (Beta $31,035.46, 95%CI 26758.86–35312.06; p &lt; 0.001). Among gynecological cancer patients, mortality was significantly reduced by PCI (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.39–0.85; p = 0.006) and being in East North Central, West North Central, South Atlantic, and Mountain regions (all p &lt; 0.03) compared to New England. PCI reduced mortality but not significantly for metastatic patients (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.32–1.71; p = 0.481). Eighteen extra gynecological cancer patients' lives were saved with PCI for a net national cost of $3.18 billion and a CER of $176.50 million per averted death.

Conclusion

This large propensity score analysis suggests that PCI may cost inefficiently reduce mortality for gynecological cancer patients, amid income and geographic disparities in outcomes.

Study on the Correlation Factors of Tumour Prognosis after Intravascular Interventional Therapy

Noninvasive or minimally invasive interventional surgery was selected, and the complications were less and had no significant impact on the quality of life of patients. Tumour patients are often accompanied by cerebrovascular diseases, metabolic diseases, and other basic diseases, which more or less adversely affect the surgical efficacy of tumour. In this paper, endovascular remobilization was used to treat tumour; the basic condition of patients before operation and the interventional operation plan were introduced. Through the analysis of clinical data and prognosis evaluation results of tumour patients receiving intravascular interventional therapy, the patients were divided into good prognosis group and poor prognosis group according to the modified Rankin scale score at discharge. The relationship between gender, age, history of hypertension, tumour width, tumour size, preoperative Hunt-Hess grade, interventional surgery method, and prognosis related to intravascular interventional therapy was explored. The results showed that intravascular interventional therapy for tumour patients can obtain a good prognosis, which provides a reference for the future preoperative assessment of treatment risk and possible prognosis and provides a theoretical basis for the formulation of treatment plan to improve prognosis.

Effect of primary percutaneous coronary intervention on in-hospital outcomes among active cancer patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a propensity score matching analysis

AIMS

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the gold standard, guideline-recommended revascularization strategy in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there are limited data on its use and effectiveness among patients with active cancer presenting with STEMI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All STEMI hospitalizations between 2004 and 2015 from the National Inpatient Sample were retrospectively analysed, stratified by cancer type. Propensity score matching was performed to estimate the average treatment effect of pPCI in each cancer on in-hospital adverse events, including major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and its individual components, and compare treatment effect between cancer and non-cancer patients. Out of 1 870 815 patients with STEMI, 38 932 (2.1%) had a current cancer diagnosis [haematological: 11 251 (28.9% of all cancers); breast: 4675 (12.0%); lung: 9538 (24.5%); colon: 3749 (9.6%); prostate: 9719 (25.0%)]. Patients with cancer received pPCI less commonly than those without cancer (from 54.2% for lung cancer to 70.6% for haematological vs. 82.3% in no cancer). Performance of pPCI was strongly associated with lower adjusted probabilities of MACCE and all-cause mortality in the cancer groups compared with the no cancer group. There was no significant difference in estimated average pPCI treatment effect between the cancer groups and non-cancer group.

CONCLUSION

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is underutilized in STEMI patients with current cancer despite its significantly lower associated rates of in-hospital all-cause mortality and MACCE that is comparable to patients without cancer. Further work is required to assess the long-term benefit and safety of pPCI in this high-risk group.

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.

Machine Learning-Augmented Propensity Score Analysis of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Over 30 Million Cancer and Non-cancer Patients

Background: It is unknown to what extent the clinical benefits of PCI outweigh the risks and costs in patients with vs. without cancer and within each cancer type. We performed the first known nationally representative propensity score analysis of PCI mortality and cost among all eligible adult inpatients by cancer and its types.

Methods: This multicenter case-control study used machine learning–augmented propensity score–adjusted multivariable regression to assess the above outcomes and disparities using the 2016 nationally representative National Inpatient Sample.

Results: Of the 30,195,722 hospitalized patients, 15.43% had a malignancy, 3.84% underwent an inpatient PCI (of whom 11.07% had cancer and 0.07% had metastases), and 2.19% died inpatient. In fully adjusted analyses, PCI vs. medical management significantly reduced mortality for patients overall (among all adult inpatients regardless of cancer status) and specifically for cancer patients (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75–0.89; p < 0.001), mainly driven by active vs. prior malignancy, head and neck and hematological malignancies. PCI also significantly reduced cancer patients' total hospitalization costs (beta USD$ −8,668.94, 95% CI −9,553.59 to −7,784.28; p < 0.001) independent of length of stay. There were no significant income or disparities among PCI subjects.

Conclusions: Our study suggests among all eligible adult inpatients, PCI does not increase mortality or cost for cancer patients, while there may be particular benefit by cancer type. The presence or history of cancer should not preclude these patients from indicated cardiovascular care.

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

: Cancer patients are increasingly referred for cardiology evaluations. These patients differ from those routinely seen in cardiology clinics because of their psychological burden and because the therapies and cancer itself can cause cardiac symptoms. A humane approach is critical to managing these patients. Cardiologists may see patients who are newly diagnosed with cancer or are in various phases of treatment; these patients may or may not have preexisting cardiac disease, and may develop cardiotoxicity from chemoimmunotherapy or radiotherapy. Each of these situations presents unique communication challenges for cardiologists. Although some oncology centers provide training in communication skills for their personnel, including cardiologists, this training is not widely available to physicians in general hospitals or private practice. This article examines the psychological aspects of cardio-oncology. It offers practical suggestions on how to best communicate with cancer patients in different phases of oncology care, and discusses when professional psychological help is needed.

Acute myocardial infarction treatments and outcomes in 6.5 million patients with a current or historical diagnosis of cancer in the USA

Aims

The aim of this study is to evaluate temporal trends, treatment, and clinical outcomes of patients who present with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and have a current or historical diagnosis of cancer, according to cancer type and presence of metastases.

Methods and results

Data from 6 563 255 patients presenting with an AMI between 2004 and 2014 from the US National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database were analysed. A total of 5 966 955 had no cancer, 186 604 had current cancer, and 409 697 had a historical diagnosis of cancer. Prostate, breast, colon, and lung cancer were the four most common types of cancer. Patients with cancer were older with more comorbidities. Differences in invasive treatment were noted, 43.9% received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients without cancer, whilst only 21.0% of patients with lung cancer received PCI. Lung cancer was associated with the highest in-hospital mortality [odds ratio (OR) 2.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.62–2.80], major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complications (OR 2.38, 95% CI 2.31–2.45), and stroke (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.80–2.02), while colon cancer was associated with highest risk of bleeding (OR 2.82, 95% CI 2.68–2.98). Irrespective of the type of cancer, presence of metastasis was associated with worse in-hospital outcomes, and historical cancer did not adversely impact on survival (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.89–0.91).

Conclusion

A concomitant cancer diagnosis is associated with a conservative medical management strategy for AMI, and worse clinical outcomes, compared to patients without cancer. Survival and clinical outcomes in the context of AMI vary significantly according to the type of cancer and metastasis status. The management of this high-risk group is challenging and requires a multidisciplinary and patient-centred approach to improve their outcomes.

Acute coronary syndromes in cancer patients

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

Acute myocardial infarction in a high-risk cancer population: Outcomes following conservative versus invasive management

BACKGROUND

The benefits of invasive versus noninvasive management in oncology patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are unclear. We aimed to retrospectively determine outcome differences between conservative and invasive management of AMI in cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients from our institution between March 2016 and December 2018 with type 1 and type 2 AMI (excluding STEMI) were classified into 2 groups: medical therapy only and invasive strategies. Analyzed outcomes were overall survival (OS), procedural complications, subsequent events, and hospice referral. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to compare OS between subgroups. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were conducted to find factors associated with OS.

RESULTS

We included 201 patients. Type 1 MI was seen in 152 patients (76%) and type 2 MI in 49 (24%). Median OS was 13 months. Most presented with symptoms other than dyspnea or chest pain (49%) and with ECG revealing changes other than ST-segment depression and T-wave inversion (62%). Patients with type 2 MI had worse OS than patients with type 1 MI (HR = 2.3, p = 0.0002). Early coronary angiography (≤72 h; HR = 0.327, p < 0.0001), late coronary angiography (>72 h; HR = 0.496, p = 0.0426), and percutaneous coronary intervention (HR = 0.481, p = 0.0116) were associated with better OS than noninvasive approaches. Single and dual agent antiplatelet therapy, beta blockers, and statins were each associated with better OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients without STEMI who underwent invasive treatment for AMI had better OS compared with those treated only medically, with the highest benefit when coronary angiography was performed within 72 h of admission for AMI.

Outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions in cancer patients

Introduction: There are numerous shared risk factors in the etiopathogenesis of coronary artery disease (CAD) and cancer both at epidemiologic and molecular level. Additionally, different modalities of treatment of cancer such as radiation, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and hormonal therapies further increase the risk of CAD and acute coronary syndrome. Most large database analysis and single-center experiences have shown that cancer patients undergoing PCI are at an increased risk of in-hospital mortality, bleeding, repeat revascularization.Areas covered: In this review article the authors discuss the associations between CAD and cancer, challenges for PCI in cancer patients and outcome data.Expert opinion: Interventionists performing PCI on cancer patients should be cognizant of the heightened risk of bleeding, thrombosis, possible need for interruption of dual-antiplatelet therapy, and the increased risk of target lesion revascularization in this cohort. These risks may be partially mitigated by utilization of best practices such as the use of radial artery access, intravascular imaging for lesion assessment and stent optimization and avoidance of complex stenting strategies. Finally, it is of paramount importance to have a multidisciplinary approach consisting of the treating cardiologist, medical and/or surgical oncologist, and palliative medicine, and involve the patient and their family in making informed decisions.

Acute Coronary Syndrome in Cancer Patients

Cardiologists are seeing an increasing number of oncology patients every day, and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is one of the problems patients encounter during follow-up. Cardio-oncology is the care of patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease, whether overt or occult, already established or acquired during treatment. Cardiovascular complications can occur acutely during or shortly after treatment and persist as long-term effects for months to years after treatment. As a delayed effect of cancer treatment, cardiovascular damage can occur months to years after the initial treatment. Vasospasm, thrombosis, and radiation-induced cardiovascular diseases can all cause ACS. Careful surveillance of ACS symptoms and regular screening during follow-up of patients with malignancy are suggested. In this review, we summarize the ACS we usually encounter during a range of cancer treatments or post cancer survival by providing illustrative case examples.