Barac, Ana

Abstract Aims We aimed to perform a retrospective cohort study using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) database to analyse the trends in cardiovascular disease (CVD)–related mortality in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) from 1999 to 2020. Methods and results We analysed the death certificate data from the CDC WONDER database from 1999 to 2020 for CVD with co-morbid myeloproliferative disorders in the US population. Age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed per 1 million population by standardizing crude mortality rates to the 2000 US census population. To assess annual national mortality trends, we employed the Joinpoint regression model, calculating the annual per cent change in AAMR and corresponding 95% CIs. A total of 15 269 deaths related to CVD occurred in patients with co-morbid MPNs from 1999 to 2020. Overall, there was a decreasing trend in CVD-related AAMRs throughout these years. Males contributed to 51% of total deaths, and their AAMR was persistently higher than women throughout the study. Non-Hispanic (NH) Whites had the highest overall AAMR, followed by NH Blacks, NH American Indians or Alaska Natives, Hispanics or Latinos, and NH Asian or Pacific Islanders. Conclusion Our findings indicate a significant decline with notable gender, racial/ethnic, and regional differences in CVD-related mortality among patients with MPN over the past two decades. We emphasize the importance of a collaborative approach between oncologists and cardiologists in managing these patients, highlighting the potential benefits of integrating cardio-oncology services to enhance patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Global collaboration in cardio-oncology is needed to understand the prevalence of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in different risk groups, practice settings, and geographic locations. There are limited data on the socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities that may impact access to care and outcomes. To address these gaps, we established the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry, a multinational, multicenter prospective registry. METHODS: We assembled cardiologists and oncologists from academic and community settings to collaborate in the first Global Cardio-Oncology Registry. Subsequently, a survey for site resources, demographics, and intention to participate was conducted. We designed an online data platform to facilitate this global initiative. RESULTS: A total of 119 sites responded to an online questionnaire on their practices and main goals of the registry: 49 US sites from 23 states and 70 international sites from 5 continents indicated a willingness to participate in the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry. Sites were more commonly led by cardiologists (85/119; 72%) and were more often university/teaching (81/119; 68%) than community based (38/119; 32%). The average number of cardio-oncology patients treated per month was 80 per site. The top 3 Global Cardio-Oncology Registry priorities in cardio-oncology care were breast cancer, hematologic malignancies, and patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Executive and scientific committees and specific committees were established. A pilot phase for breast cancer using Research Electronic Data Capture Cloud platform recently started patient enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: We present the structure for a global collaboration. Information derived from the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry will help understand the risk factors impacting cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in different geographic locations and therefore contribute to reduce access gaps in cardio-oncology care. Risk calculators will be prospectively derived and validated.

Abstract Aims Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a potentially curative therapy for several malignant and non-malignant haematologic conditions. Patients undergoing HSCT are at an increased risk of developing atrial fibrillation (AF). We hypothesized that a diagnosis of AF would be associated with poor outcomes in patients undergoing HSCT. Methods and results The National Inpatient Sample (2016–19) was queried with ICD-10 codes to identify patients aged >50 years undergoing HSCT. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients with and without AF. A multivariable regression model adjusting for demographics and comorbidities was used to calculate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and regression coefficients with corresponding 95% confidence intervals and P-values. A total of 50 570 weighted hospitalizations for HSCT were identified, out of which 5820 (11.5%) had AF. Atrial fibrillation was found to be independently associated with higher inpatient mortality (aOR 2.75; 1.9–3.98; P < 0.001), cardiac arrest (aOR 2.86; 1.55–5.26; P = 0.001), acute kidney injury (aOR 1.89; 1.6–2.23; P < 0.001), acute heart failure exacerbation (aOR 5.01; 3.54–7.1; P < 0.001), cardiogenic shock (aOR 7.73; 3.17–18.8; P < 0.001), and acute respiratory failure (aOR 3.24; 2.56–4.1; P < 0.001) as well as higher mean length of stay (LOS) (+2.67; 1.79–3.55; P < 0.001) and cost of care (+67 529; 36 630–98 427; P < 0.001). Conclusion Among patients undergoing HSCT, AF was independently associated with poor in-hospital outcomes, higher LOS, and cost of care.

Abstract The discipline of Cardio-Oncology has seen tremendous growth over the past decade. It is devoted to the cardiovascular (CV) care of the cancer patient, especially to the mitigation and management of CV complications or toxicities of cancer therapies, which can have profound implications on prognosis. To that effect, many studies have assessed CV toxicities in patients undergoing various types of cancer therapies; however, direct comparisons have proven difficult due to lack of uniformity in CV toxicity endpoints. Similarly, in clinical practice, there can be substantial differences in the understanding of what constitutes CV toxicity, which can lead to significant variation in patient management and outcomes. This document addresses these issues and provides consensus definitions for the most commonly reported CV toxicities, including cardiomyopathy/heart failure and myocarditis, vascular toxicity, and hypertension, as well as arrhythmias and QTc prolongation. The current document reflects a harmonizing review of the current landscape in CV toxicities and the definitions used to define these. This consensus effort aims to provide a structure for definitions of CV toxicity in the clinic and for future research. It will be important to link the definitions outlined herein to outcomes in clinical practice and CV endpoints in clinical trials. It should facilitate communication across various disciplines to improve clinical outcomes for cancer patients with CV diseases.

Abstract Aims Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the gold standard, guideline-recommended revascularization strategy in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there are limited data on its use and effectiveness among patients with active cancer presenting with STEMI. Methods and results All STEMI hospitalizations between 2004 and 2015 from the National Inpatient Sample were retrospectively analysed, stratified by cancer type. Propensity score matching was performed to estimate the average treatment effect of pPCI in each cancer on in-hospital adverse events, including major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and its individual components, and compare treatment effect between cancer and non-cancer patients. Out of 1 870 815 patients with STEMI, 38 932 (2.1%) had a current cancer diagnosis [haematological: 11 251 (28.9% of all cancers); breast: 4675 (12.0%); lung: 9538 (24.5%); colon: 3749 (9.6%); prostate: 9719 (25.0%)]. Patients with cancer received pPCI less commonly than those without cancer (from 54.2% for lung cancer to 70.6% for haematological vs. 82.3% in no cancer). Performance of pPCI was strongly associated with lower adjusted probabilities of MACCE and all-cause mortality in the cancer groups compared with the no cancer group. There was no significant difference in estimated average pPCI treatment effect between the cancer groups and non-cancer group. Conclusion Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is underutilized in STEMI patients with current cancer despite its significantly lower associated rates of in-hospital all-cause mortality and MACCE that is comparable to patients without cancer. Further work is required to assess the long-term benefit and safety of pPCI in this high-risk group.

Abstract In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Cardio-Oncology and Imaging Councils of the American College of Cardiology offers recommendations to clinicians regarding the cardiovascular care of cardio-oncology patients in this expert consensus statement. Cardio-oncology patients—individuals with an active or prior cancer history and with or at risk of cardiovascular disease—are a rapidly growing population who are at increased risk of infection, and experiencing severe and/or lethal complications by COVID-19. Recommendations for optimizing screening and monitoring visits to detect cardiac dysfunction are discussed. In addition, judicious use of multimodality imaging and biomarkers are proposed to identify myocardial, valvular, vascular, and pericardial involvement in cancer patients. The difficulties of diagnosing the etiology of cardiovascular complications in patients with cancer and COVID-19 are outlined, along with weighing the advantages against risks of exposure, with the modification of existing cardiovascular treatments and cardiotoxicity surveillance in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.