Novais, Barbara S.

Abstract Background Treatment with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) may be associated with adverse cardiac events. Troponin elevation is part of the diagnostic criteria for ICI related myocarditis (ICIrM) and myocardial infarction (MI), however there is limited data for causes of troponin elevation independent of MI and ICIrM and their clinical outcomes with ICI therapy. Purpose To assess the diagnostic and prognostic value of high-sensitivity troponin T (hs-TnT) in patients treated with ICI based on different etiologies and association with cardiac events. Methods All patients treated with ICI who had hs-TnT measured at a multi-center institution from 2011 to 2022 were included. Medical records were reviewed for baseline characteristics and long-term outcomes, including cardiac death and MACE (MI, stroke, heart failure [HF]), and cause of hs-TnT elevation. Risk of cardiac events and mortality were compared for the different etiologies of hs-TnT elevation. Results Of 5,423 patients treated with ICI, 1669 had post-ICI hs-TnT measurement. Mean age was 68.7±11.3 years, 58.3% were male, with follow-up through one year from ICI first administration. Elevated hs-TnT was seen in 1136 patients, with the different causes for elevation depicted in Figure 1, panel A. ICIrM patients exhibited the highest median hs-TnT value of 364 ng/L (IQR 1096), followed by a median of 98 ng/L for MI/Type 2 ischemia, 61 ng/L for infection/sepsis, 51 ng/L for pulmonary embolus, 50 ng/L for HF and 27 ng/L for indeterminate causes, Figure 1, panel B. Additionally, median time from first ICI dose to hs-TnT elevation according to each of the diagnoses are depicted in Figure 1, panel C, with ICIrM showing the shortest median time of 44 days (IQR 74). Hs-TnT elevation in patients with ICIrM had the highest risk for cardiac death (HR 52.7, 95% CI 11.7-238.0, p<0.001), followed by hs-TnT elevation due to HF (HR 15.9, 95% CI 2.9-87.0, p=0.001), MI/type 2 ischemia (HR 11.6, 95% CI 2.4-56.1, p=0.002), and infection/sepsis (HR 5.7, 95% CI 1.0-31.0, p=0.045) compared to those with no hs-TnT elevation, Figure 2, panel A. Similarly, patients with ICIrM had highest risk for MACE (HR 8.2, 95% CI 4.4-15.3, p<0.001), followed by increased hs-TnT due to MI/type 2 ischemia (HR 8.1, 95% CI 5.0-13.1, p<0.001), HF (HR 7.6, 95% CI 4.2-13.7, p<0.001), pulmonary embolism (HR 5.1, 95% CI 2.5-10.8, p<0.001), infection/sepsis (HR 4.1, 95% CI 2.4-7.0, p<0.001), and indeterminate cause (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.5-3.8, p<0.001), Figure 2, panel B. Conclusions Hs-TnT measurements have prognostic value for cardiac events in cancer patients receiving ICI therapy, including in those without ICIrM. Patients with ICIrM demonstrated the highest median hs-TnT levels and the poorest outcomes, with a graded response observed; the worst prognosis was seen in patients with hs-TnT elevation due to ICIrM, followed by other causes, and those without hs-TnT elevation had the best prognosis.Figure 1 Figure 2

Background Immune‐checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are associated with adverse cardiac events. Although troponin elevation is a diagnostic criterion for ICI‐related myocarditis (ICIrM) and myocardial infarction, data on other causes of troponin elevation and their outcomes in ICI‐treated patients are limited. Methods All patients treated with ICI who had hs‐TnT (high‐sensitivity troponin T) measured at a multicenter institution from 2011 to 2022 were included. Clinical data, outcomes (cardiac death, heart failure (HF), major adverse cardiovascular events [myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure]), and cause of hs‐TnT elevation were assessed. Risks of cardiac events were compared across hs‐TnT elevation causes. Results Of 5423 patients treated with ICI, 1669 had post‐ICI hs‐TnT measurement (mean age 68.7±11.3 years, 58.3% male), with 1‐year follow‐up. Hs‐TnT elevation in patients with ICIrM (n=59) was associated with the highest risk for cardiac death (hazard ratio [HR], 52.7 [95% CI, 11.7–238.0], P <0.001), followed by hs‐TnT elevation due to heart failure (HR, 15.9), myocardial infarction/type 2 ischemia (HR, 11.6), and infection/sepsis (HR, 5.7), compared with those with no hs‐TnT elevation. ICIrM also carried highest risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (HR, 8.2, [95% CI, 4.4–15.3], P <0.001), followed by myocardial infarction/type 2 ischemia (HR, 8.1), heart failure (HR, 7.6), pulmonary embolus (HR, 5.1), infection/sepsis (HR, 4.1), and indeterminate cause (HR, 2.4). Among ICIrM, HsTnT value >576 ng/L best predicted risk for cardiac death and >319 ng/L for major adverse cardiovascular events. Conclusions Hs‐TnT elevation after ICI therapy is associated with increased risk of cardiac events, particularly in ICIrM, and a graded prognostic association depending on the cause of hs‐TnT elevation. Identifying the underlying cause and troponin thresholds may guide risk stratification and management.

Objectives: The performed hand-held echocardiography (HHE) was evaluated and interpreted by trained advanced practice providers (APPs) on hospitalized CHF patients for image quality and interpretation by comparing with expert echocardiographer and SE findings. Background: Congestive heart failure (CHF) is associated with increased hospital admissions and mortality. While a standard echocardiogram (SE) is the gold standard for cardiac assessment, it is not readily available. Hospitalized CHF patients require rapid assessment for expedited treatment. Methods: Over 6 months, five trained APPs performed HHE on hospitalized CHF patients and interpreted: (a) left ventricular (LV) size, (b) LV ejection fraction (LVEF), and (c) right atrial pressure (RAP). The study echocardiographer reviewed and blindly interpreted the HHE images and compared them with APPs and SE findings. Kappa statistics determined the degree of agreement between APPs and the study echocardiographer’s interpretation of the HHE images and SE. Results: A total of 80 CHF patients (age 73 ± 14 years, 58% males; LVEF (by SE) 45 ± 19%; 36.3% body mass indexes ≥ 30 kg/m2) were enrolled. HHE interpretation by APPs had a good agreement for LVEF (kappa 0.79) with the study echocardiographer and SE (kappa 0.74) and a good agreement for RAP (kappa 0.67) with the study echocardiographer. The correlation between the absolute LVEF interpretation by the study echocardiographer on HHE and SE was r = 0.88 (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Trained APPs obtained diagnostic-quality HHE images and interpreted the LV function and RAP in CHF patients in good agreement with the study echocardiographer. LVEF by HHE correlated with LVEF by SE. Our study suggests trained APPs can use HHE to evaluate LVEF and RAP in CHF patients, leading to expedited and optimized treatment.