Herrmann, Joerg

Abstract Background: While pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) appears to be associated with poor outcomes in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), data on patients with CVD and concomitant cancer is limited. Evaluate the effect of underlying CVD and CVD risk factors with cancer history on in-hospital mortality in those with COVID-19.Methods: Data from symptomatic adults hospitalized with COVID-19 at 86 hospitals in the US enrolled in the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry was analyzed. The primary exposure was cancer history. The primary outcome was in-hospital death. Multivariable logistic regression models were adjusted for demographics, CVD risk factors, and CVD. Interaction between history of cancer with concomitant CVD and CVD risk factors were tested.Results: Among 8222 patients, 892 (10.8%) had a history of cancer and 1501 (18.3%) died. Cancer history had significant interaction with CVD risk factors of age, body mass index (BMI), and smoking history, but not underlying CVD itself. History of cancer was significantly associated with increased in-hospital death (among average age and BMI patients, adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=3.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.07-6.24; p<0.0001 in those with a smoking history and aOR=1.33, 95%CI: 1.01 - 1.76; p=0.04 in non-smokers). Among the cancer subgroup, prior use of chemotherapy within 2 weeks of admission was associated with in-hospital death (aOR=1.72, 95%CI: 1.05-2.80; p=0.03). Underlying CVD demonstrated a numerical but statistically nonsignificant trend toward increased mortality (aOR=1.18, 95% CI: 0.99 - 1.41; p=0.07).Conclusion: Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, cancer history was a predictor of in-hospital mortality. Notably, among cancer patients, recent use of chemotherapy, but not underlying CVD itself, was associated with worse survival. These findings have important implications in cancer therapy considerations and vaccine distribution in cancer patients with and without underlying CVD and CVD risk factors.

AbstractThe development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in long‐term survivors of lymphoma is of increasing importance. Here, we characterize the cumulative incidence and risk factors for CVD in lymphoma patients diagnosed in the current treatment era. From 2002–2015, newly diagnosed lymphoma patients (>18 years) were enrollment into a prospective cohort study that captured incident CVD, consisting of congestive heart failure (CHF), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), valvular heart disease (VHD), and arrhythmia. The cumulative incidence of CVD was calculated with death modeled as a competing risk. We estimated the association of treatment with anthracyclines or radiotherapy and traditional CVD risk factors with incidence of CVD using hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) estimated from Cox regression. After excluding prevalent CVD at lymphoma diagnosis, the study consisted of 3063 patients with a median age of 59 years (range 18–95). The cumulative incidence of CVD at 10‐years was 10.7% (95% CI, 9.5%–12.1%). In multivariable analysis, increasing age (HR = 1.05 per year, p < 0.001), male sex (HR = 1.36, p = 0.02), current smoker (HR = 2.10, p < 0.001), BMI > 30 kg/m2 (HR = 1.45, p = 0.01), and any anthracycline treatment (HR = 1.57, p < 0.001) were all significantly associated with risk of CVD. Anthracyclines were associated with increased risk of CHF (HR = 2.71, p < 0.001) and arrhythmia (HR = 1.61, p < 0.01), but not VHD (HR = 0.84, p = 0.58) or ACS (HR = 1.32, p = 0.24) after adjustment for CVD risk factors. Even in the modern treatment era, CVD remains common in lymphoma survivors and preventive efforts are required that address both treatment and CVD risk factors.

Introduction: Several chemotherapy agents, especially anthracyclines, are associated with the development of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. When chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy (CHIC) is associated with left bundle branch block (QRS >150 ms) and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35% or lower, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is often utilized to improve cardiac function and relieve symptoms. Hypothesis: CRT is associated with improvement in left ventricular strain in patients with CHIC. Methods: The study included 22 patients with CHIC and 44 age- and gender-matched controls with other types of NIC who underwent CRT implantation between 2004 and 2017. LVEF, left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLS), systolic strain rate (SRS), and early diastolic strain rate (SRE) were assessed at baseline and 6-18 months after CRT. CRT response was defined as LVEF improvement by >5% after CRT. Results: CRT responders had a significant improvement in left ventricular GLS as compared to CRT non-responders in the control group, but not in the CHIC group (Table 1). The mean change in LVEF after CRT was similar between the CHIC and control groups (10 ± 10% versus 11 ± 11%, p= 0.67). The mean change in GLS after CRT was also similar between the two groups (-2.15 ± 4.32 versus -3.57 ± 4.02, p= 0.19). The proportion of patients whose LVEF increased by more than 5% was similar between the two groups (59% in the CHIC group versus 68% in the control group, p= 0.46). The mean changes in LV myocardial systolic and early diastolic strain rates were similar between the CHIC and control groups. Mean SRS decreased by 0.13 ± 0.14 in the CHIC group and by 0.34 ± 1.28 in the control group (p=0.45). Mean SRE increased by 0.06 ± 0.18 in the CHIC group and by 0.07 ± 0.22 in the control group (p=0.86). Conclusions: CRT is associated with improvement in left ventricular strain in patients with CHIC. Prospective studies are needed to further evaluate the echocardiographic strain outcomes of CRT in CHIC.

The development of a wide range of novel antineoplastic therapies has improved the prognosis for patients with a wide range of malignancies, which has increased the number of cancer survivors substantially. Despite the oncological benefit, cancer survivors are exposed to short- and long-term adverse cardiovascular toxicities associated with anticancer therapies. Systemic hypertension, the most common comorbidity among cancer patients, is a major contributor to the increased risk for developing these adverse cardiovascular events. Cancer and hypertension have common risk factors, have overlapping pathophysiological mechanisms and hypertension may also be a risk factor for some tumor types. Many cancer therapies have prohypertensive effects. Although some of the mechanisms by which these antineoplastic agents lead to hypertension have been characterized, further preclinical and clinical studies are required to investigate the exact pathophysiology and the optimal management of hypertension associated with anticancer therapy. In this way, monitoring and management of hypertension before, during, and after cancer treatment can be improved to minimize cardiovascular risks. This is vital to optimize cardiovascular health in patients with cancer and survivors, and to ensure that advances in terms of cancer survivorship do not come at the expense of increased cardiovascular toxicities.

AbstractBackgroundSeveral chemotherapy agents are associated with the development of non‐ischemic cardiomyopathy (NIC). When chemotherapy‐induced cardiomyopathy (CHIC) is associated with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 35% or lower, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is often utilized to improve cardiac function and relieve symptoms.ObjectiveTo determine the echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of CRT in patients with CHIC.MethodsThe study included 29 patients with CHIC (CHIC group) and 58 patients with other types of NIC (control group) who underwent CRT implantation between 2004 and 2017. The primary endpoints were changes in LVEF, left ventricular end‐systolic diameter (LVESD), and left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter (LVEDD) at 6–18 months after CRT. The secondary outcomes included changes in left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLS), systolic strain rate (SRS), early diastolic strain rate (SRE), and overall survival.ResultsOut of 29 patients with CHIC, 62.1% received chemotherapy for lymphoma, 13.7% for breast cancer, and 24.1% for sarcoma. The agent implicated in 93.1% of the patients was an anthracycline. Half of the patients had LBBB. The mean baseline LVEF was 28% ± 8%. The mean baseline QRS duration was 146 ± 26 ms. Twenty‐eight patients had post‐CRT follow‐up data. CRT was associated with improvement in echocardiographic outcomes in the CHIC group and the control group. There was no difference in overall survival between the two groups (log‐rank p = .148).ConclusionCRT improves left ventricular function and reverses remodeling in patients with CHIC.

Certain cancer treatments have been linked to specific cardiovascular toxicities, including (but not limited to) cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, arterial hypertension, and myocarditis. Radiation, anthracyclines, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her2)-directed therapies, fluoropyrimidines, platinums, tyrosine kinase inhibitors and proteasome inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and chimeric antigen-presenting (CAR)-T cell therapy can all cause cardiovascular side effects. Management of cardiovascular dysfunction that occurs during cancer therapy often requires temporary or permanent cessation of the risk-potentiating anti-neoplastic drug as well as optimization of medical management from a cardiovascular standpoint. Stem cell or bone marrow transplant recipients face unique cardiovascular challenges, as do patients at extremes of age.

Abstract Introduction Coronary artery calcification (CAC) is associated with and identifies patients at higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). However, the prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes of cancer patients with CAC on CT before or after chest radiation therapy (RT) are not well addressed. Methods Retrospective cohort study of all breast cancer patients who underwent chest RT at Mayo Clinic Rochester in 2010. All pre-RT CTs were reviewed and the extent of CAC was recorded in addition to history of pre-RT atherosclerotic risk factors (hypertension (HTN), diabetes mellitus (DM), dyslipidemia, and smoking), history of pre-RT cardiovascular disease (CVD), and RT dosage. MACE (sudden cardiac death (SCD), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and stroke), and CAC progression in follow-up were recorded. CAC extent was quantified before and on 5-year follow-up CT scan in all patients, and a positive change was considered progression. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the presence of CAC before RT: present (group 1) or absent (group 2). Results Our cohort was comprised of 244 breast cancer patients who received chest RT. A total of 39 patients (16.9%) had evidence of CAC on CT prior to RT. Compared with patients without CAC before RT (n=205), those with CAC before RT were found to be older (71.8±7.7 vs 58.9±11.3, p&lt;0.01), had higher pre-RT history of HTN (84.6% vs 47.8%); p&lt;0.01), DM (20.5% vs 4.4%; p&lt;0.01), dyslipidemia (74.2% vs 40%; p&lt;0.01), CAD (23.1% vs 3.9%; p&lt;0.01), and stroke (7.69% vs 1.45%; p=0.04). Following RT, patients in group 1 were more likely to exhibit ACS (33.3% vs 2.9%; p&lt;0.01), and stroke (22.6% vs 5.2%; p&lt;0.01). Multinomial logistic regression identified pre-RT CAD pre-RT CAC (β=1.01 (0.33–1.69), OR=7.60 (1.93–29.93); p=0.02) pre-RT CAD (β=0.78 (0.06–1.49), OR=4.74 (1.14–19.74); p=0.03) as independent predictors for the development of MACE after RT. Progression in CAC after RT was found in 61.9% of all patients (13/21) who developed MACE. Conclusion MACE in breast cancer patients undergoing RT can be predicted before RT based on the CV risk factor and disease profile. The strongest predictor for MACE, however, is evidence of CAC before RT. These data provide a unique window for the identification and follow-up of breast cancer RT patients who have a risk of MACE. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Background: Clinical factors including previous history of AF, heart failure, hypertension, valvular heart disease, increased age and male gender increase the risk of AF in CLL patients (Shanafelt, Leukemia and Lymphoma 2017). Treatment with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) such as ibrutinib has also been associated with an increased risk of AF in CLL. We evaluated the role of artificial intelligence electrocardiography (AI-ECG) in predicting ibrutinib-induced AF (and, for reference, AF unrelated to ibrutinib) in patients with CLL. Methods: We identified two cohorts of CLL patients using the Mayo Clinic CLL Database. Cohort 1 included patients evaluated within 12 months of CLL diagnosis who did not ever receive ibrutinib. Cohort 2 included patients who were treated with ibrutinib. The electrocardiographic signature of AF in sinus rhythm was detected by an AI-ECG algorithm previously developed using a convolutional neural network (Attia, Lancet 2019). The baseline AI-ECG AF score (positive defined as &gt;0.10 on a scale of 0-1 which offers best balance between sensitivity and specificity per Attia et al.) was computed based on ECGs obtained within 10 years prior to CLL diagnosis (Cohort 1) or 10 years prior to initiation of ibrutinib therapy (Cohort 2). Patients with AF at baseline, missing data, or with ECGs previously used to train the AI algorithm were excluded. Reverse Kaplan Meier diagrams were plotted for both cohorts grouped by AI-ECG positivity. Cox proportional hazards were fitted to assess the predictive ability of AI-ECG in both cohorts. Results: After screening 2,739 patients and applying exclusion criteria (126 patients had baseline AF) a total of 1,149 patients with median 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 2-9) baseline ECGs were included in the analysis (Figure 1A). Cohort 1 included 951 patients with a median follow up of 3.0 (IQR 0.6-7.0) years and positive baseline AI-ECG in 546 (57%) patients. Cohort 2 included 198 patients with a median follow up of 1.6 (IQR 0.7-3.2) years and positive baseline AI-ECG in 91 (46%) patients. In Cohort 1, the median age was 67 years (IQR 58-72), 681 (72%) of patients were men, 68% had low/intermediate risk CLL-International Prognostic Index (IPI), and 32% had high/very high-risk CLL-IPI. In Cohort 2, the median age was 69 years (IQR 62-75), 139 (70%) of patients were men, 13% had low/intermediate risk CLL-IPI, and 87% had high/very high-risk CLL-IPI. AF occurred during follow up in 164 patients (17%) in Cohort 1 and 46 patients (23%) in Cohort 2. In both Cohorts 1 and 2, a positive baseline AI-ECG significantly increased the incidence of AF during follow up (log rank &lt;0.001) (Figure 1B and C). Hazard ratios (for positive vs. negative AI-ECG) were 33.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.0-76.6) for Cohort 1 and 14.8 (95% CI 5.3-41.3) for Cohort 2. Conclusion: The addition of AI to a standard 12-lead ECG obtained during normal sinus rhythm - an inexpensive and ubiquitous test - predicts the occurrence of future AF in patients with CLL. This holds true irrespective of BTKi -based therapy and has important implications for the management of CLL patients. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kenderian:BMS: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties; Juno: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy. Wang:Novartis: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Kay:Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Parikh:MorphoSys: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract BackgroundRe-allocation of resources during the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in delays in care delivery to patients with cardiovascular disease and cancer. The ability of health care providers to provide optimal care in this setting has not been formally evaluated.ObjectivesTo assess the impact of COVID-19 resource re-allocation on scheduling, testing, elective procedures, telemedicine access, use of new COVID-19 therapies, and providers’ opinions on healthcare policies among oncology and cardiology practitioners.MethodsAn electronic survey was conducted by a cardio-oncology collaborative network through regional and state chapters of the American College of Cardiology , American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the International Cardio-Oncology Society. Descriptive statistics were reported by frequency and proportion for analyses, and stratified categorically by geographic region and specialty.Results1,415 providers (43 countries) participated: 986 cardiologists, 306 oncologists, and 118 trainees/internal medicine. 63% (195/306) of oncologists vs 92% (896/976) of cardiologists reported cancellations of treatments/elective procedures (p=0.01). 46% (442/970) of cardiologists and 25% (76/303) of oncologists modified the scope of their practice (p=<0.001). Academic physicians (74.5%) felt better supplied with personal protective equipment (PPE) vs non-academic (74.5% vs 67.2%; p=0.018). Telemedicine was less common in Europe 81% (74/91), and Latin America 64% (101/158), than the United States, 88% (950/1,097) (p=<0.001). 95% of all groups supported more active leadership from medical professional societies.ConclusionsThese results support initiatives to promote expanded coverage for telemedicine, increased access to PPE, better testing availability and involvement of medical professional societies to help with preparedness for future health care crisis.Appendix: Link to the Survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/C8ZDYNW

Abstract The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS–CoV‐2) has given rise to a pandemic of unprecedented proportions in the modern era because of its highly contagious nature and impact on human health and society: coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Patients with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and established CV disease (CVD) are among those initially identified at the highest risk for serious complications, including death. Subsequent studies have pointed out that patients with cancer are also at high risk for a critical disease course. Therefore, the most vulnerable patients are seemingly those with both cancer and CVD, and a careful, unified approach in the evaluation and management of this patient population is especially needed in times of the COVID‐19 pandemic. This review provides an overview of the unique implications of the viral outbreak for the field of cardio‐oncology and outlines key modifications in the approach to this ever‐increasing patient population. These modifications include a shift toward greater utilization of cardiac biomarkers and a more focused CV imaging approach in the broader context of modifications to typical practice pathways. The goal of this strategic adjustment is to minimize the risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection (or other future viral outbreaks) while not becoming negligent of CVD and its important impact on the overall outcomes of patients who are being treated for cancer.