Optimal Medical Therapy in Patients with Malignancy Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome: a BleeMACS Sub-Study

EHA Guidelines on Management of Antithrombotic Treatments in Thrombocytopenic Patients With Cancer

In cancer patients, thrombocytopenia can result from bone marrow infiltration or from anticancer medications and represents an important limitation for the use of antithrombotic treatments, including anticoagulant, antiplatelet, and fibrinolytic agents. These drugs are often required for prevention or treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis or for cardioembolic prevention in atrial fibrillation in an increasingly older cancer population. Data indicate that cancer remains an independent risk factor for thrombosis even in case of thrombocytopenia, since mild-to-moderate thrombocytopenia does not protect against arterial or venous thrombosis. In addition, cancer patients are at increased risk of antithrombotic drug-associated bleeding, further complicated by thrombocytopenia and acquired hemostatic defects. Furthermore, some anticancer treatments are associated with increased thrombotic risk and may generate interactions affecting the effectiveness or safety of antithrombotic drugs. In this complex scenario, the European Hematology Association in collaboration with the European Society of Cardiology has produced this scientific document to provide a clinical practice guideline to help clinicians in the management of patients with cancer and thrombocytopenia. The Guidelines focus on adult patients with active cancer and a clear indication for anticoagulation, single or dual antiplatelet therapy, their combination, or reperfusion therapy, who have concurrent thrombocytopenia because of either malignancy or anticancer medications. The level of evidence and the strength of the recommendations were discussed according to a Delphi procedure and graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

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.

Assessment of coronary artery disease during hospitalization for cancer treatment

Background

With improvement of cancer-specific survival, comorbidities and treatment-related side effects, particularly cardiovascular toxicities, need close attention. The aim of the present study was to evaluate clinical characteristics and outcomes of cancer patients requiring coronary angiography during inpatient care.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized between 02/2011 and 02/2018 in our two university hospital cancer centers. From a cohort of 60,676 cancer patients, we identified 153 patients (65.7 ± 11.6 years, 73.2% male), who underwent coronary angiography and were eligible for analysis. These were compared to a control group of 153 non-cancer patients pair-matched with respect to age, sex, and indication for catheterization.

Results

Cancer patients presented in 66% with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The most prevalent cancer entities were lymphoma (19%) and lung cancer (18.3%). The rate of primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) was significantly lower in the cancer cohort (40.5% vs. 53.6%, p = 0.029), although manifestation of coronary artery disease (CAD) and PCI results were comparable (SYNergy between PCI with TAXus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX)-score, delta pre- and post-PCI − 9.8 vs. − 8.0, p = 0.2). Mortality was remarkably high in cancer patients (1-year mortality 46% vs. 8% in non-cancer patients, p < 0.001), particularly with troponin-positive ACS (5-year mortality 71%).

Conclusion

Strategies to effectively control cardiovascular risks in cancer patients are needed. Additionally, suspected CAD in cancer patients should not prevent prompt diagnostic clarification and optimal revascularization as PCI results in cancer patients are comparable to non-cancer patients and occurrence of troponin-positive ACS leads to a significantly increased risk of mortality.

Graphic Abstract

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00392-020-01719-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cardiac Interventional Procedures in Cardio-Oncology Patients

Comorbidities specific to the cardio-oncology population contribute to the challenges in the interventional management of patients with cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Patients with cancer have generally been excluded from cardiovascular randomized clinical trials. Endovascular procedures may represent a valid option in patients with cancer with a range of CVDs because of their minimally invasive nature. Patients with cancer are less likely to be treated according to societal guidelines because of perceived high risk. This article presents the specific challenges that interventional cardiologists face when caring for patients with cancer and the modern tools to optimize care.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the prognostic impact of cancer among patients with acute coronary syndrome and/or percutaneous coronary intervention

Background

Patients with cancer admitted for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represent a growing and high-risk population. The influence of co-existing cancer on mortality remains unclear in such patients. We aimed to assess the impact of cancer on early and late, all-cause and cardiac mortality in the setting of ACS and/or PCI.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing outcomes of patients with and without a history of cancer admitted for ACS and/or PCI.

Results

Six studies including 294,528 ACS patients and three studies including 39,973 PCI patients were selected for our meta-analysis. Patients with cancer had increased rates of in-hospital all-cause death (RR 1.74 [1.22; 2.47]), cardiac death (RR 2.44 [1.73; 3.44]) and bleeding (RR 1.64 [1.35; 1.98]) as well as one-year all-cause death (RR 2.62 [1.2; 5.73]) and cardiac death (RR 1.89 [1.25; 2.86]) in ACS studies. Rates of long term all-cause (RR 1.96 [1.52; 2.53]) but not cardiac death were higher in cancer patients admitted for PCI.

Conclusion

Cancer patients represent a high-risk population both in the acute phase and at long-term after an ACS or PCI. The magnitude of the risk of mortality should however be tempered by the heterogeneity among studies. Early and long term optimal management of such patients should be promoted in clinical practice.

Clinical presentation and treatment of acute coronary syndrome as well as 1-year survival of patients hospitalized due to cancer: A 7-year experience of a nonacademic center

The diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with cancer constitutes a therapeutic challenge. We aimed to assess the clinical presentation and management of ACS as well as 1-year survival in patients hospitalized for cancer.This retrospective study included patients hospitalized between 2012 and 2018 in a nonacademic center. The inclusion criteria were diagnosis of active cancer and ACS recognized using standard criteria. Patients were assessed with respect to invasive or conservative ACS strategy. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, and the secondary endpoint was cardiovascular mortality during 1-year follow-up.We screened 25,165 patients, of whom 36 (0.14%) had ACS (mean [SD] age, 71.9 [9.8] years). The most common presentation was non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (61% of patients). Coronary angiography was performed in 47% of patients, while 53% were treated conservatively. Overall, the primary endpoint occurred in 67% of patients and secondary endpoint in 28% during follow-up. The predictors of better outcome in a univariate analysis were invasive strategy, lack of metastases, aspirin use, and no cardiogenic shock. Invasive treatment and aspirin use remained significant predictors of better survival when adjusted for the presence of metastases (hazard ratio [HR] 0.37, confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.92 and HR 0.39, CI 0.16-0.94, respectively) and ineligibility for cancer treatment (HR 0.37, CI 0.15-0.93 and HR 0.30, CI 0.12-0.73, respectively).The incidence of ACS in cancer patients is low but 1-year mortality rates are high. Guideline-recommended management was frequently underused. Our results suggest that invasive approach and aspirin use are associated with better survival regardless of cancer stage and eligibility for cancer treatment.

Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention of Cardiovascular Toxicity Related to Anti-Cancer Treatment in Clinical Practice: An Opinion Paper from the Working Group on Cardio-Oncology of the Korean Society of Echocardiography

Cardiovascular (CV) toxicity associated with anti-cancer treatment is commonly encountered and raises critical problems that often result in serious morbidity or mortality. Most cardiac toxicities are related to the cumulative dose of chemotherapy; however, the type of chemotherapy, concomitant agents, and/or conventional CV risk factors have been frequently implicated in CV toxicity. Approximately half of the patients exhibiting CV toxicity receive an anthracycline-based regimen. Therefore, serologic biomarkers or cardiac imagings are important during anti-cancer treatment for early detection and the decision of appropriate management of cardiotoxicity. However, given the difficulty in determining a causal relationship, a multidisciplinary collaborative approach between cardiologists and oncologists is required. In this review, we summarize the CV toxicity and focus on the role of cardiac imaging in management strategies for cardiotoxicity associated with anti-cancer treatment.