Reclassification of Treatment Strategy with Fractional Flow Reserve in Cancer Patients with Coronary Artery Disease.

Background and Objectives: Cancer and coronary artery disease (CAD) often coexist. Compared to quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), fractional flow reserve (FFR) has emerged as a more reliable method of identifying significant coronary stenoses. We aimed to assess the specific management, safety and outcomes of FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in cancer patients with stable CAD. Materials and Methods: FFR was used to assess cancer patients that underwent coronary angiography for stable CAD between September 2008 and May 2016, and were found to have ≥50% stenosis by QCA. Patients with lesions with an FFR > 0.75 received medical therapy alone, while those with FFR ≤ 0.75 were revascularized. Procedure-related complications, all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularizations were analyzed. Results: Fifty-seven patients with stable CAD underwent FFR on 57 lesions. Out of 31 patients with ≥70% stenosis as measured by QCA, 14 (45.1%) had an FFR ≥ 0.75 and lesions were reclassified as moderate and did not receive PCI nor DAPT. Out of 26 patients with <70% stenosis as measured by QCA, 6 (23%) had an FFR < 0.75 and were reclassified as severe and were treated with PCI and associated DAPT. No periprocedural complications, urgent revascularization, acute coronary syndromes, or cardiovascular deaths were noted. There was a 22.8% mortality at 1 year, all cancer related. Patients who received a stent by FFR assessment showed a significant association with decreased risk of all-cause death (HR: 0.37, 95% CI 0.15−0.90, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Further studies are needed to define the optimal therapeutic approach for cancer patients with CAD. Using an FFR cut-off point of 0.75 to guide PCI translates into fewer interventions and can facilitate cancer care. There was an overall reduction in mortality in patients that received a stent, suggesting increased resilience to cancer therapy and progression.

An update on the management and outcomes of cancer patients with severe aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) by transcatheter (TAVR) and surgical (SAVR) routes with those of optimal medical management in patients with cancer and severe aortic stenosis (AS). BACKGROUND: Cancer therapy requires optimal cardiac output; however, the treatment of AS in cancer patients is not established. METHODS: Cancer patients with severe AS during January 2009 through February 2018 at a large cancer center were identified. Demographic and clinical characteristics including previous or active cancer diagnosis, history of chest radiotherapy, AS treatment, and survival were collected. Univariate Cox proportional hazards regression, the Kaplan-Meier analysis, and log-rank tests were used to compare overall survival (OS) between AS treatment groups. RESULTS: Sixty-five cancer patients with severe AS were identified; 28 received optimal medical treatment alone, 30 received TAVR, and seven received SAVR. The patients were predominantly male (n = 44, 68%) with a mean age of 71.17 years. The median OS was 9.87 months, and the most common cause of death was cancer (n = 29, 94% of deaths). AVR was associated with a lower risk of death than no AVR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.38, P = 0.007), and patients who underwent TAVR (HR 0.36, P = 0.01) had better survival than those with no AVR. Malignancy type, stage, and treatment were not associated with OS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer and severe AS who underwent AVR, predominantly TAVR, experienced better survival than those who had no AVR regardless of cancer type or cancer treatment. TAVR may be considered in patients with cancer and AS.