Integrating Cardio-Oncology Across the Research Pipeline, Policy, and Practice in Australia-An Australian Cardiovascular Alliance Perspective.

Over 18 million people worldwide were diagnosed with cancer in 2020, including over 150,000 people in Australia. Although improved early detection and treatment have increased the survival rates, cardiotoxic treatment and inadequate management of cardiovascular risk factors have resulted in cardiovascular disease (CVD) being one of the leading causes of non-cancer-related death and disability among cancer survivors. International guidelines outline the standards of care for CVD risk surveillance and management. However, Australian cardio-oncology policies and clinical guidelines are limited. There is increasing growth of cardio-oncology research in Australia and support from leading Australian professional bodies and advocacy and research networks, including the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, the National Heart Foundation of Australia, and the Australian Cardiovascular Alliance (ACvA). Thus, opportunities to drive multidisciplinary cardio-oncology initiatives are growing, including grant funding, position statements, and novel research to inform new policies. The ACvA has a unique flagship structure that spans the translational research pipeline from drug discovery to implementation science. This article aims to highlight how multidisciplinary cardio-oncology innovations could intersect with the seven ACvA flagships, and to showcase Australian achievements in cardio-oncology thus far. We summarise eight key priority areas for future cardio-oncology research that emerged. These strategies will strengthen cardio-oncology research and care in Australia, and drive new guidelines, policies, and government initiatives to ensure equity in health outcomes for all cardio-oncology patients.

Cardiovascular outcomes of cancer patients in rural Australia.

Background: Cancer and heart disease are the two most common health conditions in the world, associated with high morbidity and mortality, with even worse outcomes in regional areas. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in cancer survivors. We aimed to evaluate the cardiovascular outcomes of patients receiving cancer treatment (CT) in a regional hospital. Methods: This was an observational retrospective cohort study in a single rural hospital over a ten-year period (17th February 2010 to 19th March 2019). Outcomes of all patients receiving CT during this period were compared to those who were admitted to the hospital without a cancer diagnosis. Results: 268 patients received CT during the study period. High rates of cardiovascular risk factors: hypertension (52.2%), smoking (54.9%), and dyslipidaemia (38.4%) were observed in the CT group. Patients who had CT were more likely to be readmitted with ACS (5.9% vs. 2.8% p = 0.005) and AF (8.2% vs. 4.5% p = 0.006) when compared to the general admission cohort. There was a statistically significant difference observed for all cause cardiac readmission, with a higher rate observed in the CT group (17.1% vs. 13.2% p = 0.042). Patients undergoing CT had a higher rate of mortality (49.5% vs. 10.2%, p ≤ 0.001) and shorter time (days) from first admission to death (401.06 vs. 994.91, p ≤ 0.001) when compared to the general admission cohort, acknowledging this reduction in survival may be driven at least in part by the cancer itself. Conclusion: There is an increased incidence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including higher readmission rate, higher mortality rate and shorter survival in people undergoing cancer treatment in rural environments. Rural cancer patients demonstrated a high burden of cardiovascular risk factors.

Sedation and Analgesia for Cardiac Catheterisation and Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: While cardiac catheterisation is typically well tolerated, discomfort and anxiety are commonplace. Sedation using anxiolytic and analgesic medications has the potential to ameliorate such symptoms, however, is variably employed, with lack of standardised regimens and limited evidence. METHODS: We performed a review of the role of sedation for cardiac catheterisation, including current practices and summarising available evidence relevant to diagnostic and interventional coronary procedures in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. RESULTS: Use of sedation and the medication regimens employed are highly variable. Available relevant studies are limited in number and mostly small. Sedation appears to modestly reduce anxiety and pain in most studies. The incidence of radial spasm and the consequent need to alter access site is reduced with procedural sedation. The majority of existing evidence applies to benzodiazepines and opioid use, which appear acceptably efficacious and safe when used with appropriate training and staffing; noting opioid medications reduce the absorption of loading doses of oral anti-platelet drugs. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, benzodiazepines and opioids result a modest reduction in pain, improved patient tolerability and reduced risk of radial artery spasm. The decision on whether to use sedation, and which agent(s) and dose, should be individualised based on patient factors, including need for oral antiplatelet therapy administration. Appropriate staffing and monitoring is essential.

Common themes in patients requiring urgent cardiothoracic surgery after percutaneous coronary interventions: Case series and review of the literature.

Urgent cardiothoracic surgical intervention for the management of complications of percutaneous coronary intervention is uncommon in the stent era. Nonetheless, given increasing procedural complexity, in part reflecting an aging population, an ongoing hazard for urgent surgery remains. We sought to review the incidence and outcome of urgent cardiothoracic surgery in patients undergoing PCI in a contemporary cohort at a tertiary referral centre. The incidence of cardiothoracic intervention for PCI related complications was low at 0.1% over a ten-year period, with iatrogenic coronary artery and aortic root dissection unable to successfully managed percutaneously recurrent precipitants for surgical involvement. Procedural features associated with the need for urgent surgery are noted and methods to overcome such complications discussed.