Cardio-oncology rehabilitation: are we ready?

Cardio-oncology rehabilitation (CORE) is not only an essential component of cancer rehabilitation but also a pillar of preventive cardio-oncology. Cardio-oncology rehabilitation is a comprehensive model based on a multitargeted approach and its efficacy has been widely documented; when compared with an 'exercise only' programme, comprehensive CORE demonstrates a better outcome. It involves nutritional counselling, psychological support, and cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment, and it is directed to a very demanding population with a heavy burden of CV diseases driven by physical inactivity, cancer therapy-induced metabolic derangements, and cancer therapy-related CV toxicities. Despite its usefulness, CORE is still underused in cancer patients and we are still at the dawning of remote models of rehabilitation (tele-rehabilitation). Not all CORE is created equally: a careful screening procedure to identify patients who will benefit the most from CORE and a multidisciplinary customized approach are mandatory to achieve a better outcome for cancer survivors throughout their cancer journey. The aim of this paper is to provide an updated review of CORE not only for cardiologists dealing with this peculiar population of patients but also for oncologists, primary care providers, patients, and caregivers. This multidisciplinary team should help cancer patients to maintain a healthy and active life before, during, and after cancer treatment, in order to improve quality of life and to fight health inequities.

Heart valve calcification and cardiac hemodynamics.

PURPOSE: Heart valve calcification (VC) is associated with increased cardiovascular risk, but the hemodynamic and functional profile of patients affected by VC has not been fully explored. METHODS: The study population was formed by consecutive unselected patients included in seven echocardiographic laboratories in a 2-week period. A comprehensive echocardiographic examination was performed. VC was defined by the presence of calcification on at least one valve. RESULTS: Population was formed of 1098 patients (mean age 65 ± 15 years; 47% female). VC was present in 31% of the overall population. Compared with subjects without VC, VC patients were older (60 ± 14 vs 75 ± 9; P < .0001), had more hypertension (40% vs 57%; P = .0005), diabetes (11% vs 18%; P = .002), coronary artery disease (22% vs 38%; P = .04), and chronic kidney disease (4% vs 8%; P = .007). Furthermore, VC patients had lower ejection fraction (55 ± 14 vs 53 ± 25; P < .0001), worse diastolic function (E/e' 8.5 ± 4.6 vs 13.0 ± 7.1; P < .0001) and higher pulmonary artery pressure (29 ± 9 vs 37 ± 12; P < .0001). The association between VC and EF was not independent of etiology (p for VC 0.13), whereas the association with E/e' and PASP was independent in a full multivariate model (P < .0001 and P = .0002, respectively). CONCLUSION: Heart valve calcification patients were characterized by a worse functional and hemodynamic profile compared to patients with normal valve. The association between VC and diastolic function and PASP were independent in comprehensive multivariate models.

[Cardiovascular risk profile and lifestyle habits in a cohort of Italian cardiologists. Results of the SOCRATES survey]. / Profilo di rischio cardiovascolare e stili di vita in una coorte di cardiologi Italiani. risultati della survey SOCRATES (Survey on Cardiac Risk Profile and Lifestyle Habits in a Cohort of Italian Cardiologists).

OBJECTIVES: To offer a snapshot of the personal health habits of Italian cardiologists, the Survey on Cardiac Risk Profile and Lifestyle Habits in a Cohort of Italian Cardiologists (SOCRATES) study was undertaken. BACKGROUND: Cardiologists' cardiovascular profile and lifestyle habits are poorly known worldwide. METHODS: A Web-based electronic self-reported survey, accessible through a dedicated website, was used for data entry, and data were transferred via the web to a central database. The survey was divided in 4 sections: baseline characteristics, medical illnesses and traditional cardiovascular risk factors, lifestyle habits and selected medication use. The e-mail databases of three national scientific societies were used to survey a large and representative sample of Italian cardiologists. RESULTS: During the 3-month period of the survey, 1770 out of the 5240 cardiologists contacted (33.7%) completed and returned one or more sections of the questionnaire. More than 49% of the participants had 1 out of 5 classical risk factors (e.g. hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, active smoking, diabetes and previous vascular events). More than 28% of respondents had 2 to 5 risk factors and only 22.1% had none and therefore, according to age and sex, could be considered at low-intermediate risk. Despite the reported risk factors, more than 90% of cardiologists had a self-reported risk perception quantified as mild, such as low or intermediate. Furthermore, overweight/obesity, physical inactivity and stress at work or at home were commonly reported, as well as a limited use of cardiovascular drugs, such as statins or aspirin. CONCLUSIONS: The average cardiovascular profile of Italian cardiologist is unlikely to be considered ideal or even favorable according to recent statements and guidelines regarding cardiovascular risk. Thus, there is a large room for improvement and a need for education and intervention.