Ischemia and Bleeding in Cancer Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

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

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

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.

Risk Burden of Cancer in Patients Treated With Abbreviated Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After PCI: Analysis of Multicenter Controlled High-Bleeding Risk Trials

BACKGROUND

Oncological patients with coronary artery disease face an elevated risk of hemorrhagic and ischemic events following percutaneous coronary intervention. Despite medical guidelines recommending minimal dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration for patients with cancer, dedicated data on abbreviated DAPT in this population is lacking. This study aims to evaluate the occurrence of ischemic and hemorrhagic events in patients with cancer compared with other high-bleeding risk individuals.

METHODS

Patient-level data from 4 high-bleeding risk coronary drug-eluting stent studies (ONYX One, LEADERS FREE, LEADERS FREE II, and SENIOR trials) treated with short DAPT were analyzed. The comparison focused on patients with high-bleeding risk with and without cancer, assessing 1-year rates of net adverse clinical events (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] types 3 to 5 bleeding) and major adverse clinical events (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke).

RESULTS

A total of 5232 patients were included, of whom 574 individuals had cancer, and 4658 were at high-bleeding risk without previous cancer. Despite being younger with fewer risk factors, patients with cancer had higher net adverse clinical event (HR, 1.25; P=0.01) and major adverse clinical event (HR, 1.26; P=0.02), primarily driven by all-cause mortality and major bleeding (BARC 3-5), but not myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, or repeat revascularization. Cancer was an independent predictor of net adverse clinical event (P=0.005), major adverse clinical event (P=0.01), and major bleeding (P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The present work is the first report on abbreviated DAPT dedicated to patients with cancer. Cancer is a major marker of adverse outcomes and these events had high lethality. Despite short DAPT, patients with cancer experienced higher rates of major bleeding compared with patients without cancer with high-bleeding risk, which occurred mainly after DAPT discontinuation. These findings reinforce the need for a more detailed and individualized stratification of those patients.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT03344653, NCT01623180, NCT02843633, NCT0284.

Cancer and arterial thrombosis: therapeutic options

A State of the Art lecture titled "Cancer and Arterial Thrombosis: Therapeutic Options" was presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress in 2023. This State of the Art review delves into the complex relationship between cancer and arterial thromboembolism (ATE), encompassing acute coronary syndrome, ischemic strokes, and peripheral arterial disease. The burden of cancer-associated ATE is not well defined, but studies indicate elevated risks, particularly in the 6 months after a cancer diagnosis. Incidence varies among cancer subtypes, with lung cancer displaying the highest rates. Additionally, the pathophysiology of cancer-associated ATE involves a multifaceted interplay of cancer-induced hypercoagulopathy, cancer therapy-related thrombosis, and personal risk factor contributors. ATEs are clinically heterogeneous and in the context of cancer have particular mechanistic differences compared with ATE patients without cancer. This requires modifications in approach and tailored management considerations. Specific etiologies contributing to ATE, such as coronary vasospasm and non-bacterial-thrombotic endocarditis, need to be considered. The diagnosis of cancer alone usually does not contraindicate patients to standard guideline-based therapies for the management of ATE, although nuances in treatment may need to be considered in light of the underlying cancer. Atrial fibrillation in cancer patients further complicates the thrombotic landscape. Cancer patients with atrial fibrillation are at a higher risk of ATE, necessitating careful consideration of anticoagulation therapy as clinical benefits and bleeding risks need to be weighed. ATE may also be a presenting sign of underlying malignancy, which requires increased awareness and focused clinical evaluation for cancer in selected cases. Finally, we summarize relevant new data on this topic presented during the 2023 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress.

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.

Bleeding and Ischemic Risk Prediction in Patients With High Bleeding Risk (an EVOLVE Short DAPT Analysis)

The EVOLVE Short DAPT study demonstrated the safety of truncated dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with a high bleeding risk (HBR) treated with SYNERGY stent(s) (Boston Scientific Company, Marlborough, Massachusetts). In this population, bleeding and ischemic risk prediction may further inform DAPT decisions. This post hoc analysis of the EVOLVE Short DAPT study identified predictors of ischemic and bleeding events up to 15 months using Cox proportional hazard models. The predicted probabilities of bleeding were calculated using the Breslow method. Of 2,009 enrolled patients, 96.9% of the patients met at least 1 HBR criteria. At 15 months, the cumulative incidences of bleeding and ischemic events were 6.3% and 6.0%, respectively. The risk of bleeding was increased in patients who received oral anticoagulants (hazard ratio [HR] 2.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.50 to 3.36, p <0.001) or had peripheral vascular disease (HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.56, p = 0.045). The risk of ischemic events was increased in patients with diabetes (HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.78, p <0.01) or congestive heart failure (HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.04, p <0.001). Renal insufficiency/failure was associated with both endpoints. There was a strong positive correlation between the predicted probability of ischemic and bleeding events (R = 0.77, p <0.001). In 617 patients with a predicted bleeding risk <4%, ischemic events predominated, and the ischemic and bleeding rates were higher in patients with a predicted bleeding risk ≥4%. Within an HBR cohort, specific characteristics identify patients at a higher risk for ischemic and separately, bleeding events. Increased bleeding risk is tied to increased ischemic risk. In conclusion, standardized risk models are needed to inform DAPT decisions in patients with a higher risk. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02605447.

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.

Bridging therapy according to new clinical guidelines: A review

In modern world it is really important to know how to manage patients taking anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. There is an increasing number of patients, who have gone through PCI or any other cardiac intervention and who also need another surgery which cannot be postponed till the end of dual antiplatelet therapy. The number of patients who take oral anticoagulant has also increased last years. Algorithms of perioperative bridging therapy and antiplatelet therapy discontinuation can help to decrease both ischemic and hemorrhagic complications. Multidisciplinary risk assessment remains a critical component of perioperative care.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cancer using bare metal stents compared to drug-eluting stents

Background

Management of coronary artery disease (CAD) is unique and challenging in cancer patients. However, little is known about the outcomes of using BMS or DES in these patients. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in cancer patients who were treated with bare metal stents (BMS) vs. drug-eluting stents (DES).

Methods

We identified cancer patients who underwent PCI using BMS or DES between 2013 and 2020. Outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and the number of revascularizations. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate the survival probability. Multivariate Cox regression models were utilized to compare OS between BMS and DES.

Results

We included 346 cancer patients who underwent PCI with a median follow-up of 34.1 months (95% CI, 28.4–38.7). Among these, 42 patients were treated with BMS (12.1%) and 304 with DES (87.9%). Age and gender were similar between the BMS and DES groups (p = 0.09 and 0.93, respectively). DES use was more frequent in the white race, while black patients had more BMS (p = 0.03). The use of DES was more common in patients with NSTEMI (p = 0.03). The median survival was 46 months (95% CI, 34–66). There was no significant difference in the number of revascularizations between the BMS and DES groups (p = 0.43). There was no significant difference in OS between the BMS and DES groups in multivariate analysis (p = 0.26). In addition, independent predictors for worse survival included age &gt; 65 years, BMI ≤ 25 g/m2, hemoglobin level ≤ 12 g/dL, and initial presentation with NSTEMI.

Conclusions

In our study, several revascularizations and survival were similar between cancer patients with CAD treated with BMS and DES. This finding suggests that DES use is not associated with an increased risk for stent thrombosis, and as cancer survival improves, there may be a more significant role for DES.

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.

Cardio-Oncology Drug Interactions: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

In the cardio-oncology population, drug interactions are of particular importance given the complex pharmacological profile, narrow therapeutic index, and inherent risk of therapies used to manage cardiovascular disease and cancer. Drug interactions may be beneficial or detrimental to the desired therapeutic effect. Clinicians in both cardiology and oncology should be cognizant of these potential drug-drug interactions that may reduce the efficacy or safety of either cardiovascular or cancer therapies. These risks can be mitigated through increased recognition of potential drug-drug interaction, use of alternative medications when possible, and careful monitoring. This scientific statement provides clinicians with an overview of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions in patients with cancer exposed to common cardiovascular and cancer medications.

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.

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.

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.

Challenges and Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Cancer Patients

Cancer and cardiovascular disease are the leading causes of mortality in the world. The prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and coronary artery disease in cancer patients is elevated, and it is associated with high mortality. Several mechanisms, such as the proinflammatory and procoagulant states present in cancer patients, may contribute to these scenarios. Oncological therapy can predispose patients to acute thrombosis, accelerated atherosclerosis and coronary spasm. Treatment decisions must be individualized and based on the cancer history and balancing bleeding and thrombosis risks.

Contemporary Understandings of Cardiovascular Disease After Cancer Radiotherapy: a Focus on Ischemic Heart Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Radiation-induced cardiovascular disease, including coronary artery disease, is a well-known sequela of radiation therapy and represents a significant source of morbidity and mortality for cancer survivors. This review examines current literature and guidelines to care for this growing population of cancer survivors.

RECENT FINDINGS

The development of radiation-induced ischemic heart disease following radiation can lead even to early cardiotoxicities, inclusive of coronary artery disease, which limit cancer treatment outcomes. These coronary lesions tend to be diffuse, complex, and proximal. Early detection with multimodality imaging and targeted intervention is required to minimize these risks. Early awareness, detection, and management of radiation-induced cardiovascular disease are paramount as cancer survivorship continues to grow.