RESUMO
A relationship between malignancy and impaired hemostasis has been proven, and balancing clotting and bleeding risks can be challenging. Half of cancer patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) do not receive any oral anticoagulation (OAC). Using PubMed on the relationship between cancer and AF and their association with hemostasis, targeting studies comparing vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and direct OAC (DOAC) strategies in AF cancer patients, three RCTs (>3000 patients) and eight observational studies (>250,000 patients) comparing different OACs were retrieved. The VKA prescribed was always warfarin. Dabigatran was the only DOAC not analyzed in the RCTs but the most used in non-randomized studies, whereas edoxaban-treated patients were the majority in the RCTs. Overall, the DOAC patients showed similar or lower rates of efficacy (thromboembolic) and safety (bleeding) outcomes compared to the VKA patients. DOACs are subject to fewer interactions with antineoplastic agents. DOACs may be preferable to VKAs as a thromboembolic prophylaxis in cancer patients with non-valvular AF.
RESUMO
(1) Introduction: Cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF) are increasingly coexisting medical challenges. These two conditions share an increased thrombotic and bleeding risk. Although optimal regimens of the most suitable anti-thrombotic therapy are now affirmed in the general population, cancer patients are still particularly understudied on the matter; (2) Aims And Methodology: This metanalysis (11 studies (incl. 266,865 patients)) aims at evaluating the ischemic-hemorrhagic risk profile of oncologic patients with AF treated with oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonists vs. direct oral anticoagulants); (3) Results: In the oncological population, DOACs confer a benefit in terms of the reduction in ischemic, hemorrhagic and venous thromboembolic events. However, ischemic prevention has a non-insignificant bleeding risk, lower than Warfarin but significant and higher than the non-oncological patients; (4) Conclusions: Anticoagulation with DOACs provides a higher safety profile with respect to VKAs in terms of stroke reduction and a relative bleeding reduction risk. Further studies are needed to better assess the optimal anticoagulation strategy in cancer patients with AF.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is often associated with ascending aorta dilation (AAD). AAD is amenable to surgical correction combined with aortic valve replacement. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) might represent a valid therapeutic option in these patients when AAD correction Is not indicated. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the impact of concomitant AAD on early and mid-term outcomes after TAVI for symptomatic severe AS. METHODS: This is a single-center observational study including patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI. All patients with previous surgery on the left ventricular outflow tract, aortic valve, or ascending aorta (except coronary artery bypass graft surgery) were excluded from the analysis. Patients undergoing TAVI for congenital aortic valve defects or subjects in whom a computed tomography (CT) scan was not available were excluded from the analysis. Ascending aortas were measured on CT scans using appropriate multiplanar reconstructions. Ascending aortas were qualified as dilated if the measurement was >40 mm. Study outcomes were death from any cause, significant paravalvular leaks (PVLs), and new permanent pacemaker (PPM) implant. RESULTS: The final population consisted of 680 subjects, 61% females, mean age 82 ± 7 years. One hundred subjects (15%) had AAD. No differences in terms of significant PVL or PPM implantation were found between subjects with or without AAD (P>.99 and P=.13, respectively). At a median follow-up of 498 ± 216 days, no significant difference in terms of mortality was found between subjects with or without AAD (P=.78). CONCLUSIONS: AAD does not appear to impact the mid-term outcomes in a cohort of subjects undergoing TAVI.