Acute myocardial infarction treatments and outcomes in 6.5 million patients with a current or historical diagnosis of cancer in the USA

AIMS: The aim of this study is to evaluate temporal trends, treatment, and clinical outcomes of patients who present with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and have a current or historical diagnosis of cancer, according to cancer type and presence of metastases. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 6 563 255 patients presenting with an AMI between 2004 and 2014 from the US National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database were analysed. A total of 5 966 955 had no cancer, 186 604 had current cancer, and 409 697 had a historical diagnosis of cancer. Prostate, breast, colon, and lung cancer were the four most common types of cancer. Patients with cancer were older with more comorbidities. Differences in invasive treatment were noted, 43.9% received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients without cancer, whilst only 21.0% of patients with lung cancer received PCI. Lung cancer was associated with the highest in-hospital mortality [odds ratio (OR) 2.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.62-2.80], major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complications (OR 2.38, 95% CI 2.31-2.45), and stroke (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.80-2.02), while colon cancer was associated with highest risk of bleeding (OR 2.82, 95% CI 2.68-2.98). Irrespective of the type of cancer, presence of metastasis was associated with worse in-hospital outcomes, and historical cancer did not adversely impact on survival (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.89-0.91). CONCLUSION: A concomitant cancer diagnosis is associated with a conservative medical management strategy for AMI, and worse clinical outcomes, compared to patients without cancer. Survival and clinical outcomes in the context of AMI vary significantly according to the type of cancer and metastasis status. The management of this high-risk group is challenging and requires a multidisciplinary and patient-centred approach to improve their outcomes

Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use in early acute respiratory distress syndrome : Insights from the LUNG SAFE study

Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.Background: Concerns exist regarding the prevalence and impact of unnecessary oxygen use in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We examined this issue in patients with ARDS enrolled in the Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) study. Methods: In this secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE study, we wished to determine the prevalence and the outcomes associated with hyperoxemia on day 1, sustained hyperoxemia, and excessive oxygen use in patients with early ARDS. Patients who fulfilled criteria of ARDS on day 1 and day 2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were categorized based on the presence of hyperoxemia (PaO2 > 100 mmHg) on day 1, sustained (i.e., present on day 1 and day 2) hyperoxemia, or excessive oxygen use (FIO2 ≥ 0.60 during hyperoxemia). Results: Of 2005 patients that met the inclusion criteria, 131 (6.5%) were hypoxemic (PaO2 < 55 mmHg), 607 (30%) had hyperoxemia on day 1, and 250 (12%) had sustained hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use occurred in 400 (66%) out of 607 patients with hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use decreased from day 1 to day 2 of ARDS, with most hyperoxemic patients on day 2 receiving relatively low FIO2. Multivariate analyses found no independent relationship between day 1 hyperoxemia, sustained hyperoxemia, or excess FIO2 use and adverse clinical outcomes. Mortality was 42% in patients with excess FIO2 use, compared to 39% in a propensity-matched sample of normoxemic (PaO2 55-100 mmHg) patients (P = 0.47). Conclusions: Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use are both prevalent in early ARDS but are most often non-sustained. No relationship was found between hyperoxemia or excessive oxygen use and patient outcome in this cohort. Trial registration: LUNG-SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073publishersversionPeer reviewe

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection

Cardiac Computed Tomography in Cardio-Oncology: JACC: CardioOncology Primer.

Cancer patients and survivors have elevated cardiovascular risk when compared with noncancer patients. Cardio-oncology has emerged as a new subspecialty to comanage and address cardiovascular complications in cancer patients such as heart failure, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), valvular heart disease, pericardial disease, and arrhythmias. Cardiac computed tomography (CT) can be helpful in identifying both clinical and subclinical ASCVD in cancer patients and survivors. Radiation therapy treatment planning CT scans and cancer staging/re-staging imaging studies can quantify calcium scores which can identify pre-existing subclinical ASCVD. Cardiac CT can be helpful in the evaluation of cardiac tumors and pericardial diseases, especially in patients who cannot tolerate or have a contraindication to cardiac magnetic resonance. In this review, we describe the optimal utilization of cardiac CT in cancer&nbsp;patients, including risk assessment for ASCVD and identification of cancer treatment-related cardiovascular toxicity