Outcomes of Patients With Severe Symptomatic Aortic Valve Stenosis After Chest Radiation: Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with history of chest wall irradiation: Propensity matched analysis of five years data from national inpatient sample (2016-2020)

INTRODUCTION

Chest radiotherapy has been utilized to treat intra-thoracic and mediastinal tumors. Chest wall irradiation (C-XRT) survivors frequently develop valvular disease, including aortic stenosis, which eventually requires valve replacement. Previous trials have shown worse outcomes with surgical aortic valve replacement. However, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) outcomes-related data in patients with C-XRT is limited.

METHODS

The national inpatient sample (NIS) database was queried from 2016 to 2020 to identify adult hospitalizations with TAVR, which were dichotomized based on a history of C-XRT using ICD-10-CM codes. Propensity score matching was performed to derive age, sex, hospital characteristics, and co-morbidities matched controls without a history of C-XRT. The outcomes studied were inpatient mortality and complications, mean length of stay (LOS), and total hospital charge (THC). Multivariate logistic and linear regression were used to analyze the outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 296,670 patients who underwent TAVR between 2016 and 2020, 515 had a history of C-XRT. Upon propensity score matching in patients undergoing TAVR, Patients with a history of C-XRT showed significantly lower adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odd ratio [aOR] 0.04, 95 % CI [0.003-0.57], p = 0.017), lower mean LOS by 1.6 days (-1.88 to -1.26 days, p < 0.001) and reduced mean THC (-$74,720, [-$88,784 to -$60,655], p < 0.001). Additionally, patients with C-XRT had significantly lower adjusted odds of inpatient complications, mainly acute myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events, acute respiratory failure, acute kidney injury, need for vasopressors and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, whereas similar odds of complications, including a requirement of intubation, mechanical ventilation, hemodialysis, and cardiogenic shock.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis showed reduced adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality, length of stay, total hospital charges, and inpatient complications in patients undergoing TAVR with a history of C-XRT. TAVR appears to be a safe and viable alternative in this population subgroup.

Surgical coronary angioplasty of both coronary ostia after chest radiotherapy. Is it good alternative to conventional coronary bypass surgery?

INTRODUCTION

Isolated coronary ostial stenosis of both ostia is a rare, potentially life-threatening condition, occurring in 0.1%-0.2% of patients undergoing coronary angiography.

CASE REPORT

We present a case of a 69-year-old woman with a past medical history of breast cancer, who had been treated with radiotherapy, which most likely caused significant stenosis of both coronary ostia and likely accelerated aortic stenosis. Surgical angioplasty with autopericardium patch reconstruction of the left main coronary artery and right coronary arteries due to proximal stenotic disease was performed instead of venous or arterial bypasses with concomitant aortic valve replacement. The postoperative course was uneventful. There were no cardiovascular events 5 years after operation, and the patient remained free of any symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical coronary angioplasty offers an alternative to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting in isolated coronary ostial lesions and is advantageous in restoring more physiological myocardial perfusion, especially in those cases when conduits are suspected to be fibrotic, scarred or stenosed after radiation therapy or if there is the need to preserve conduits for future myocardial revascularisation in young patients.

The role of cardiac surgery in radiation-associated heart disease: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Thoracic irradiation is an important tool in the treatment of breast cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and other cancers of the chest. The heart is commonly involved in these radiation fields, and young patients can present with severe cardiac pathologies requiring surgical intervention. However, this population poses a high surgical risk due to involvement of mediastinal tissues, and there are no consensus guidelines on best practice management.

AIM

This review aims to summarise the current experience of surgical correction of radiation-associated heart disease. We explore outcomes, technique modifications and alternative therapies for the three primary procedures performed: coronary artery bypass grafting, valvular intervention and pericardiectomy.

METHODS

OVID Medline and PubMed databases were comprehensively searched to identify all studies involving surgery in patients with prior chest radiotherapy. All relevant studies within the past 25 years have been discussed.

CONCLUSION

Irradiated patients have heightened peri-operative risk, but other than redo surgery, these operations are not as treacherous as once thought. Involvement of all layers of the heart, especially the myocardium, is such that long-term mortality suffers despite optimal surgical correction. The goal of surgery in this cohort should be for a quick and safe operation, rather than a technically difficult procedure aimed at longevity.

Cardiovascular Toxicities of Radiation Therapy and Recommended Screening and Surveillance

Radiation therapy is a key part of treatment for many cancers. Vast advancements in the field of radiation oncology have led to a decrease in malignancy-related mortality, which has uncovered some of the long-term side effects of radiation therapy. Specifically, there has been an increase in research looking into the cardiovascular side effects of chest radiation therapy for cancers of the esophagus, breast, and lung tissue as well as lymphomas. The manifestations of cardiac injury from irradiation range from short-term complications, such as pericarditis, to long-term damage including cardiomyopathy, valvular disease, and conduction disturbances. The aims of this article are to describe the cardiovascular side effects and the associated risk factors, to discuss risk reduction strategies, and to provide guidance in pre-radiation screening, post-radiation surveillance, and the management of these conditions.

Transcatheter aortic valve intervention in patients with cancer

The prevalence of concurrent cancer and severe aortic stenosis (AS) is increasing due to an ageing population. In addition to shared traditional risk factors for AS and cancer, patients with cancer may be at increased risk for AS due to off-target effects of cancer-related therapy, such as mediastinal radiation therapy (XRT), as well as shared non-traditional pathophysiological mechanisms. Compared with surgical aortic valve replacement, major adverse events are generally lower in patients with cancer undergoing transcatheter aortic valve intervention (TAVI), especially in those with history of mediastinal XRT. Similar procedural and short-to-intermediate TAVI outcomes have been observed in patients with cancer as compared with no cancer, whereas long-term outcomes are dependent on cancer survival. Considerable heterogeneity exists between cancer subtypes and stage, with worse outcomes observed in those with active and advanced-stage disease as well as specific cancer subtypes. Procedural management in patients with cancer poses unique challenges and thus requires periprocedural expertise and close collaboration with the referring oncology team. The decision to ultimately pursue TAVI involves a multidisciplinary and holistic approach in assessing the appropriateness of intervention. Further clinical trial and registry studies are needed to better appreciate outcomes in this population.

Accelerated Atherosclerosis and Cardiovascular Toxicity Induced by Radiotherapy in Breast Cancer

The number of patients diagnosed with breast cancer and cardiovascular disease is continuously rising. Treatment options for breast cancer have greatly evolved, but radiotherapy (RT) still has a key role in it. Despite many advances in RT techniques, cardiotoxicity is one of the most important side effects. The new cardio-oncology guidelines recommend a baseline evaluation, risk stratification and follow-up of these patients. Cardiotoxicity induced by RT can be represented by almost all forms of cardiovascular disease, with atherosclerosis being the most frequent. An interdisciplinary team should manage these patients, in order to have maximum therapeutic effect and minimum cardiovascular toxicity. This review will summarize the current incidence, risk factors, mechanisms and follow-up of RT-induced cardiovascular toxicity.

Cardiotoxicity of Anti-Cancer Radiation Therapy: a Focus on Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As the percentage of patients achieving long-term survival following treatment of their cancer grows, it is increasingly important to understand the long-term toxicities of cancer-directed treatment. In this review, we highlight the recent findings regarding radiation-induced cardiotoxicity across multiple disease sites, with a particular focus on heart failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite its relative lack of study historically, radiation-induced heart failure has now recently been implicated in several studies of breast cancer, lung cancer, esophageal cancer, and lymphoma as a non-trivial potential consequence of thoracic radiotherapy. Data regarding specific cardiac dosimetric endpoints relevant to cardiotoxicity continue to accumulate. Radiation-induced heart failure is a rare but significant toxicity of thoracic radiotherapy, that is likely underreported. Important areas for future focus include understanding the interplay between thoracic radiotherapy and concurrent cardiotoxic systemic therapy as well as development of potential mitigation strategies and novel therapeutics.

Left atrial appendage volume as a prognostic Indicator of long-term mortality in Cancer survivors treated with thoracic radiation

BACKGROUND

Cancer survivors with prior chest radiation therapy (CXRT) frequently present with atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and have higher overall long-term mortality. There are no data examining the utility of left atrial (LA) and LA appendage (LAA) volume-indices to predict clinical outcomes in these patients.

OBJECTIVES

We examined the prognostic value of cardiac phase-dependent 3-D volume-rendered cardiac computerized tomography (CT)-derived LA and LAA volume-indices to predict mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in cancer survivors treated with thoracic irradiation.

METHOD

We screened 625 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis who had undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement from 2012 to 2017. Based on the gated cardiac CT image quality, we included 184 patients (CXRT:43, non-CXRT:141) for further analysis. We utilized multiplane-3D-reconstructed cardiac CT images to calculate LA and LAA volume-indices, and examined the prognostic role of CCT-derived LA and LAA volume-indices in predicting the all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and MACE. We used multivariate cox-proportional hazard analysis to identify the clinical predictors of survival.

RESULTS

Overall, the CXRT group had significantly elevated LAA volume-index compared to non-CXRT group (CXRT:11.2 ± 8.9 ml/m²; non-CXRT:8.6 ± 4.5 ml/m², p = 0.03). On multivariate cox-proportional hazard analysis, the elevated LAA volume and LAA volume-index were the strongest predictors of reduced survival in CXRT group compared to non-CXRT group (LAA volume: RR = 1.03,95% CI 1.0-1.01, p = 0.01; and LAA volume index: RR = 1.05, 95% CI 1.0-1.01, p = 0.03). LAA volume > 21.9 ml was associated with increased mortality. In contrast, LA volume was not a significant predictor of mortality.

CONCLUSION

We describe a novel technique to assess LA and LAA volume using 3-D volume-rendered cardiac CT. This study shows enlarged LAA volume rather than LA volume carries a poor prognosis in cancer-survivors treated with prior CXRT. Compared to conventionally reported markers, LAA volume of > 21.9 ml was incremental to that of other risk factors.

Mediastinal irradiation and valvular heart disease

Anticancer therapy has the potential to cause unwanted cardiovascular side effects. Utilization of radiation therapy to treat tumors near the heart can result in radiation-induced valvular heart disease among other cardiovascular pathologies. The aim of this review is to describe the epidemiology, pathophysiology, risk prediction, non-invasive imaging modalities and management of radiation-induced valvular heart disease with a focus on pre-operative risk assessment and contemporary treatment options.

Characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients with prior chest radiation undergoing TAVR: Observations from PARTNER-2

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to investigate the viability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) in patients with prior chest radiation therapy (cXRT).

BACKGROUND

Since patients with prior cXRT perform poorly with surgical aortic valve replacement, TAVR can be a viable alternative. However, clinical outcomes after TAVR in this patient population have not been well studied.

METHODS

From the pooled registry of the placement of aortic transcatheter valves II trial, we identified patients with and without prior cXRT who underwent TAVR (n = 64 and 3923, respectively). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death and any stroke at 2 years. Time to event analyses were shown as Kaplan-Meier event rates and compared by log-rank testing. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated and compared by Cox proportional hazards regression model.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the patients with and without prior cXRT (30.7% vs. 27.0%; p = 0.75; HR, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.77). Rates of myocardial infarction, vascular complications, acute kidney injury, or new pacemaker implant after TAVR were not statistically different between the two groups. The rate of immediate reintervention with a second valve for aortic regurgitation after TAVR was higher among the patients with prior cXRT. However, no further difference was observed during 2 years follow-up after discharge from the index-procedure hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR is a viable alternative for severe symptomatic AS in patients who had cXRT in the past.

The Heart-Team Approach for the Treatment of Radiation-Induced Aortic Stenosis and Coronary Artery Disease: A Case Report

We describe the case of a 54-year-old woman admitted to the cardiology ward for the correction of radiation-induced aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease. After careful workup, she underwent surgical aortic valve replacement and aortocoronary bypass with venous grafts. This case demonstrates the late cardiovascular complications that can develop after radiation therapy for cancer, and the surgical complexity of these patients. Thorough workup is needed for the treatment of radiation-induced valvulopathy and coronary artery disease, as these patients are often poor surgical candidates with hostile chests. Multidisciplinary heart-team assessment is paramount, and consideration should be given to catheter-based approaches.

Cardiovascular Manifestations From Therapeutic Radiation: A Multidisciplinary Expert Consensus Statement From the International Cardio-Oncology Society

Radiation therapy is a cornerstone of cancer therapy, with >50% of patients undergoing therapeutic radiation. As a result of widespread use and improved survival, there is increasing focus on the potential long-term effects of ionizing radiation, especially cardiovascular toxicity. Radiation therapy can lead to atherosclerosis of the vasculature as well as valvular, myocardial, and pericardial dysfunction. We present a consensus statement from the International Cardio-Oncology Society based on general principles of radiotherapy delivery and cardiovascular risk assessment and risk mitigation in this population. Anatomical-based recommendations for cardiovascular management and follow-up are provided, and a priority is given to the early detection of atherosclerotic vascular disease on imaging to help guide preventive therapy. Unique management considerations in radiation-induced cardiovascular disease are also discussed. Recommendations are based on the most current literature and represent a unanimous consensus by the multidisciplinary expert panel.

•

Radiation therapy leads to short- and long-term cardiovascular adverse effects of the vasculature and the heart, including valvular, myocardial, and pericardial disease.

•

Computed tomography scans conducted for radiation planning or cancer staging provide an available opportunity to detect asymptomatic atherosclerosis and direct preventive therapies.

•

Additional practical screening recommendations for cardiovascular disease based on anatomical exposure are provided.

•

There are unique considerations in the management of radiation-induced cardiovascular disease; contemporary percutaneous treatment is often preferred over surgical options.

Transcatheter Compared With Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Previous Chest-Directed Radiation Therapy

Background

Cardiac surgery for radiation-induced valvular disease is associated with adverse outcomes. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly used in patients with a history of chest-directed radiation therapy and aortic stenosis (CRT-AS).

Objectives

We examined outcomes of TAVR compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with CRT-AS.

Methods

We identified 69 patients with CRT-AS who underwent TAVR from January 2012 to September 2018. Operative mortality, postoperative morbidities, and length of hospitalization were compared with 117 contemporaneous patients with CRT-AS who underwent isolated SAVR. Age-adjusted survival was evaluated by means of Cox proportional hazards modeling.

Results

Compared with SAVR patients, TAVR patients were older (mean age 75 ± 11.5 vs 65 ± 11.5 years), with more comorbidities, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, and peripheral vascular disease (all P < 0.050). Operative mortality was 4.3% for SAVR vs 1.4% for TAVR (P = 0.41). Most SAVR deaths (4 of 5) occurred in the intermediate-/high-risk group (Society for Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of operative mortality >3%; P = 0.026). The ratio of observed to expected mortality was better for low-risk SAVR patients and all TAVR patients (0.72 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.86] and 0.24 [95% CI: 0.05-0.51], respectively) compared with intermediate-/high-risk SAVR patients (2.52 [95% CI: 0.26-4.13]). SAVR patients had significantly longer median intensive care unit and overall length of stay and higher blood transfusion requirements but similar rates of stroke and pacemaker implantation.

Conclusions

TAVR was associated with excellent in-hospital outcomes and better survival compared with intermediate-/high-risk SAVR in patients with CRT-AS. While SAVR still has a role in low-risk patients or those for whom TAVR is unsuitable for technical or anatomical reasons, TAVR is emerging as the standard of care for intermediate-/high-risk CRT-AS patients.

Radiation-Induced Cardiovascular Disease: Review of an Underrecognized Pathology

Radiation therapy demonstrates a clear survival benefit in the treatment of several malignancies. However, cancer survivors can develop a wide array of cardiotoxic complications related to radiation. This pathology is often underrecognized by clinicians and there is little known on how to manage this population. Radiation causes fibrosis of all components of the heart and significantly increases the risk of coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathy, valvulopathy, arrhythmias, and pericardial disease. Physicians should treat other cardiovascular risk factors aggressively in this population and guidelines suggest obtaining regular imaging once symptomatology is established. Patients with radiation‐induced cardiovascular disease tend to do worse than their traditional counterparts for the same interventions. However, there is a trend toward fewer complications and lower mortality with catheter‐based rather than surgical approaches, likely because radiation makes these patients poor surgical candidates. When appropriate, these patients should be referred for percutaneous management of valvulopathy and coronary disease.

TAVR in Cancer Patients: Comprehensive Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression

Objectives: This study sought to systematically analyze the available clinical evidence on TAVR therapy in cancer patients with symptomatic severe AS.

Background: Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease in the world. TAVR has expanded the treatment options for this lethal disease process. The safety and efficacy of TAVR in cancer patients has not yet been reliably established. We thus conducted the largest known multi-center meta-analysis on TAVR and cancer status.

Methods: We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2015 to 2020. Studies that compared the use of TAVR in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and cancer against patients without cancer were included. Meta-regression was also conducted to determine if common clinical factors modified the possible association between cancer status and TAVR mortality.

Results: Five studies with 11,129 patients in the cancer group and 41,706 patients in the control group met inclusion criteria. The short-term mortality in the cancer group was 2.4% compared with 3.3% in the control group (odds ratio: 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.63–0.82; p < 0.0001). The frequency of stroke was 2.4% compared with 2.7% (odds ratio of 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.76–0.99; p < 0.04). The frequency of AKI was 14.2% in cancer patients vs. 16.4% (odds ratio of 0.81, 95% confidence interval: 0.76–0.85; p < 0.04). The rates of bleeding and need for new pacemaker implantation were not significantly different. Meta-regression demonstrated there was no significant association modifying.

Conclusions: On the basis of the results of this meta-analysis TAVR may be a safe and effective therapeutic option for patients with cancer and symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Larger, longer, and randomized trials are required to adequately test this above hypothesis.

Successful Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in a Patient with Radiation-induced Aortic Stenosis for Mediastinal Hodgkin Lymphoma

Aortic stenosis (AS), a late complication of thoracic radiation therapy for chest lesions, is often coincident with porcelain aorta or hostile thorax. We herein report a 59-year-old man with a history of mediastinal Hodgkin lymphoma treated with radiation therapy but later presenting with heart failure caused by severe AS. Severe calcification in the mediastinum and around the ascending aorta made it difficult to perform surgical aortic valve replacement. The patient therefore underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). It is important to recognize radiation-induced AS early, now that TAVI is a well-established treatment required by increasing numbers of successfully treated cancer patients.

Radiation-Induced Vascular Disease-A State-of-the-Art Review

Since the 1990s, there has been a steady increase in the number of cancer survivors to an estimated 17 million in 2019 in the US alone. Radiation therapy today is applied to a variety of malignancies and over 50% of cancer patients. The effects of ionizing radiation on cardiac structure and function, so-called radiation-induced heart disease (RIHD), have been extensively studied. We review the available published data on the mechanisms and manifestations of RIHD, with a focus on vascular disease, as well as proposed strategies for its prevention, screening, diagnosis, and management.

Short-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Isolated Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Mediastinal Radiation-Associated Severe Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with radiation-associated aortic stenosis. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may improve outcomes in this population.

METHODS

We evaluated 1668 TAVR and 2611 patients with SAVR enrolled in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons' database between 2011 and 2018. Multiple logistic regression was used to compare 30- day outcomes between TAVR and SAVR. Propensity-matched analysis was performed to confirm results of the overall cohort. Additionally, the cohort was stratified into early (2011-2014) versus contemporary (2015-2018) TAVR eras, and 30-day outcomes for TAVR and SAVR were compared. Finally, outcomes with transfemoral TAVR versus SAVR were compared.

RESULTS

In the overall cohort, TAVR was associated with significantly reduced 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]_TAVR/SAVR=0.60 [0.40-0.91]). Postoperative atrial fibrillation, pneumonia, pleural effusion, renal failure, and bleeding also occurred less frequently with TAVR. Stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA; OR_TAVR/SAVR, 2.03 [1.09-3.77]) and pacemaker implantation (OR_TAVR/SAVR, 1.62 [1.21-2.17]) were higher with TAVR. Propensity-matched analysis yielded similar results as the overall cohort. Following stratification by era, TAVR versus SAVR was associated with reduced 30-day mortality in the contemporary but not early era (OR_Early, 0.78 [0.48-1.28]; OR_Contemporary, 0.31 [0.14-0.65]). Pacemaker implantation was higher with TAVR versus SAVR in both eras (OR_Early, 1.60 [1.03-2.46]; OR_Contemporary, 1.64 [1.10-2.45]). There was also a nonsignificant trend towards increased stroke/TIA with TAVR during both eras (OR_Early, 1.39 [0.58-3.36]; OR_Contemporary, 2.46 [0.99-6.10]). Finally, transfemoral TAVR (N=1369) versus SAVR revealed similar findings as the overall cohort; however, the association of TAVR with stroke/TIA was not statistically significant (OR_Stroke/TIA, 1.57 [0.79-3.09]).

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR provides an effective and evolving alternative to SAVR for radiation-associated severe aortic stenosis and was associated with lower 30-day mortality and postoperative complications. TAVR was associated with increased pacemaker implantation and a trend towards increased stroke/TIA. In this unique population with extensive valvular and vascular calcifications, the risk of stroke/TIA with TAVR requires careful consideration and further investigation.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with a history of cancer: Periprocedural and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

A history of cancer is incorporated into the surgical risk assessment of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement through the Society for Thoracic Surgeons score. However, the prognostic significance of cancer in patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is unclear. As the cancer survivorship population increases, it is imperative to establish the efficacy and safety of TAVR in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) and a history of malignancy.

OBJECTIVES

The primary goal of this study was to assess the periprocedural outcomes and long-term mortality in patients with a history of cancer undergoing TAVR.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE was conducted to identify studies reporting outcomes in patients with a history of malignancy undergoing TAVR. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model with a primary outcome of all-cause mortality and cardiac mortality at the longest follow-up. On secondary analyses, procedural safety was assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 13 observational studies with 10,916 patients were identified in the systematic review. Seven studies including 6,323 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Short-term mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.61, 95%CI 0.36-1.01; p = .06) and long-term all-cause mortality (RR 1.24, 95%CI 0.95-1.63; p = .11) were not significantly different when comparing patients with and without a history of cancer. No significant difference in the rate of periprocedural complications including stroke, bleeding, acute kidney injury, and pacemaker implantation was noted.

CONCLUSION

In patients with severe AS undergoing TAVR, a history of cancer was not associated with adverse short or long-term survival. Based on these findings, TAVR should be considered in all patients with severe symptomatic AS, irrespective of their history of malignancy.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement after chest radiation: A propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Chest radiation therapy (CRT) for malignant thoracic neoplasms is associated with development of valvular heart disease years later. As previous radiation exposure can complicate surgical treatment, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an alternative. However, outcomes data are lacking for TAVR patients with a history of CRT.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of all patients who underwent a TAVR procedure at a single institution between September 2012 and November 2018. Among 1341 total patients, 50 had previous CRT. These were propensity-matched in a 1:2 ratio to 100 patients without history of CRT. Thirty-day adverse events were analyzed with generalized estimating equation models. Overall mortality was analyzed with stratified Cox regression modelling.

RESULTS

Median clinical follow-up was 24 months (interquartile range [IQR], 12-44 months). There was no difference between CRT and non-CRT patients in overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.84 [0.37-1.90], P = 0.67), 30-day mortality (HR 3.1 [0.49-20.03], P = 0.23), or 30-day readmission rate (HR 1.0 [0.43-2.31], P = 1). There were no differences in the rates of most adverse events, but patients with CRT history had higher rates of postprocedural respiratory failure (HR 3.63 [1.32-10.02], P = 0.01) and permanent pacemaker implantation (HR 2.84 [1.15-7.01], P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with aortic valve stenosis and previous CRT, TAVR is safe and effective, with outcomes similar to those in the general aortic stenosis population. Patients with history of CRT are more likely to have postprocedural respiratory failure and to require permanent pacemaker implantation.

Outcomes of Patients With Severe Symptomatic Aortic Valve Stenosis After Chest Radiation: Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Background Patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis and a history of chest radiation therapy represent a complex and challenging cohort. It is unknown how transcatheter aortic valve replacement ( TAVR ) compares with surgical aortic valve replacement in this group of patients, which was the objective of this study. Methods and Results We retrospectively reviewed all patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent either TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement at our institution with a history of mediastinal radiation (n=55 per group). End points were echocardiographic and clinical outcomes in-hospital, at 30 days, and at 1 year. Inverse propensity weighting analysis was used to account for intergroup baseline differences. TAVR patients had a higher STS score than surgical aortic valve replacement patients (5.1% [3.2, 7.7] versus 1.6% [0.8, 2.6], P<0.001) and more often ( P<0.01 for all) a history of atrial fibrillation (45.5% versus 12.7%), chronic lung disease (47.3% versus 7.3%), peripheral arterial disease (38.2% versus 7.3%), heart failure (58.2% versus 18.2%), and pacemaker therapy (23.6% versus 1.8%). Postoperative atrial fibrillation was less frequent (1.8% versus 27.3%; P<0.001) and hospital stay was shorter in TAVR patients (4.0 [2.0, 5.0] versus 6.0 [5.0, 8.0] days; P<0.001). The ratio of observed-to-expected 30-day mortality was lower after TAVR as was 30-day mortality in inverse propensity weighting-adjusted Kaplan-Meier analyses. Conclusions In patients with severe aortic stenosis and a history of chest radiation therapy, TAVR performs better than predicted along with less adjusted 30-day all-cause mortality, postoperative atrial fibrillation, and shorter hospitalization compared with surgical aortic valve replacement. These data support further studies on the preferred role of TAVR in this unique patient population.

The Role of Echocardiography in the Cancer Patient

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the uses of echocardiography in patients with cancer and how it has expanded beyond the typical monitoring of systolic function during potentially cardiotoxic cancer therapeutics.

RECENT FINDINGS

In addition to myocardial strain imaging being a predictor of subsequent left ventricular dysfunction, it can be used for pattern recognition to help identify patients with cardiac amyloidosis or Takotsubo cardiomyopathy. Echocardiography is essential for diagnosis and planning of intervention for aortic stenosis in radiation-induced valvular disease, for which transcutaneous aortic valve replacement that gives many cancer patients that are not surgical candidates an option for treatment. The safety of transesophageal echocardiography has recently been demonstrated in patients with cancer with thrombocytopenia and depleted white blood cell counts who are at increased risk of endocarditis. Echocardiography is an essential tool for evaluating common conditions in cancer patients such as pericardial disease, radiation-induced heart disease, and intracardiac tumors-with specific uses of specialized echocardiography techniques such as deformation imaging, transesophageal echocardiography, and point-of-care ultrasound.

Outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in cancer survivors with prior chest radiation therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Cancer survivors with prior chest radiation therapy (C-XRT) frequently present with aortic stenosis (AS) as the first manifestation of radiation-induced heart disease. They are considered high-risk for surgical valve replacement. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is as an attractive option for this patient population but the outcomes are not well established in major clinical trials. The authors performed a systemic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies for the outcomes after TAVR in cancer survivors with prior C-XRT.

Methods

Online databases were searched from inception to April 2020 for studies evaluating the outcomes of TAVR in patients with and without C-XRT. We analyzed the pooled estimates (with their 95% confidence intervals) of the odds ratio (OR) for the all-cause mortality at 30-day and 1-year follow-ups, 4-point safety outcomes (stroke, major bleed, access-related vascular complications and need for a pacemaker), a 2-point efficacy outcome (mean aortic valve gradient and left ventricular ejection fraction) and worsening of congestive heart failure (CHF). Four studies were included following 2054 patients with and without prior C-XRT exposure (164 patients and 1890 patients respectively).

Results

The C-XRT group had similar 30-day mortality compared to the control group (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.58, p = 0.48). The 1-year mortality was higher in the C-XRT group (OR 1.97, CI 1.15 to 3.39, p = 0.01). Apart from higher congestive heart failure (CHF) exacerbation in the C-XRT group (OR 2.03, CI 1.36 to 3.04, p = 0.0006), TAVR resulted in similar safety and efficacy outcomes in both groups.

Conclusion

TAVR in the C-XRT group has similar 30-day mortality, safety, and efficacy outcomes compared to the control group; however, they have higher 1-year mortality and CHF exacerbation. Including an oncologist to the cardiology team who considers cancer stage in the decision-making process and applying additional preoperative scores such as frailty indices may refine the risk assessment for these patients. The quality of analyzed data is modest, warranting randomized trials to assess the true benefits of TAVR in these patients.