Clinical Outcomes after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Cancer Survivors Treated with Ionizing Radiation

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.

Cancer survivorship at heart: a multidisciplinary cardio-oncology roadmap for healthcare professionals

In cancer, a patient is considered a survivor from the time of initial diagnosis until the end of life. With improvements in early diagnosis and treatment, the number of cancer survivors (CS) has grown considerably and includes: (1) Patients cured and free from cancer who may be at risk of late-onset cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity (CTR-CVT); (2) Patients with long-term control of not-curable cancers in whom CTR-CVT may need to be addressed. This paper highlights the importance of the cancer care continuum, of a patient-centered approach and of a prevention-oriented policy. The ultimate goal is a personalized care of CS, achievable only through a multidisciplinary-guided survivorship care plan, one that replaces the fragmented management of current healthcare systems. Collaboration between oncologists and cardiologists is the pillar of a framework in which primary care providers and other specialists must be engaged and in which familial, social and environmental factors are also taken into account.

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.

Aortic Valve Leaflet Rupture Causing Delayed Left Main Coronary Ostial Obstruction During Valvuloplasty Preceding TAVR

A 69-year-old man with mediastinal radiation history underwent balloon valvuloplasty before transcatheter aortic valve replacement, which caused aortic leaflet rupture leading to unstable severe aortic regurgitation and subsequent left main ostial obstruction. A balloon-expanding valve was implanted to capture the ruptured leaflet and a left main stent was placed. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.)

Association Between Previous or Active Cancer and Clinical Outcomes in TAVR Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 255,840 Patients

Background: It has been proposed that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be an option for patients with cancer and severe aortic stenosis. We assessed the association between previous or active cancer and clinical outcomes in TAVR patients. Methods: We searched four electronic databases from inception to March 05, 2021. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, acute kidney injury, pacemaker implantation, major bleeding, and vascular complications. All meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Relative risks (RRs) and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with their 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were pooled. Results: Thirteen cohort studies involving 255,840 patients were included. The time period for mortality ranged from inpatient to 10 years. Patients with active cancer had a higher risk of all-cause mortality using both crude (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.88) and adjusted (aHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.43-2.25) estimates compared to non-cancer group. In contrast, the risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.58-2.73), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.34-2.57), stroke (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.75-1.09), pacemaker implantation (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.50-1.53), acute kidney injury (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74-1.04), major bleeding (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.80-1.66), and vascular complications (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79-1.18) was similar between patients with or without cancer. Conclusion: Our review shows that TAVR patients with active cancer had an increased risk of all-cause mortality. No significant association with secondary outcomes was found.

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

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

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

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

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

Aortic valve stenosis and cancer: a common and complex association

Introduction. The prevalence of aortic valve stenosis (AS) and malignancy are both high, especially in elderly people and in developed countries. These two conditions frequently coexist and share the same risk factors as atherosclerotic disease.Area covered. The progression of calcified AS may be accelerated by both cardiovascular risk factors and cancer treatments, such as radiotherapy. The standard treatment for symptomatic severe AS is surgical aortic valve replacement; however, in cancer patients, transcatheter implantation may be preferred as they are often at high-risk for cardiac surgery. In patients with AS and cancer, physicians may face difficult treatment decisions.To date, there is limited information on the impact of malignancy on outcomes in patients with severe AS; hence, there is no established treatment policy.Expert Opinion. Treating clinicians must integrate complex information about the severity of valve disease and expected cardiac outcomes with information regarding the cancer prognosis and the need for specific treatment, including surgery. Other comorbidities, age and frailty also contribute to decision-making about whether, when, and how to perform aortic valve replacement.

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.