Sex Differences in Mortality Risk after the First Hospitalisation with Lower Extremity Peripheral Arterial Disease.

OBJECTIVE: Lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a severe condition that increases the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse limb events, and all cause mortality. This study aimed to investigate the mortality risk among females and males hospitalised for the first time with lower extremity PAD. METHODS: Three cohorts of patients who were admitted for the first time with lower extremity PAD in 2007 - 2010, 2011 - 2014, and 2015 - 2018 were constructed. For the 2007 - 2010 and 2011 - 2014 cohorts, the 28 day, one year, and five year mortality rates were calculated, assessing survival time from date of hospital admission until date of death, end of study period, or censoring. For the 2015 - 2018 cohort, only 28 day and one year mortality were investigated due to lack of follow up data. Mortality rates of these cohorts were compared with the general population using standardised mortality rates (SMRs), and the risk of death between sexes was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models. Cox models were adjusted for age, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes mellitus to account for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: In total, 7 950, 9 670, and 13 522 patients were included in the 2007 - 2010, 2011 - 2014, and 2015 - 2018 cohorts, respectively. Over 60% of individuals in each cohort were males. Mortality rates at 28 day and one year remained stable across all cohorts, while the five year mortality rate increased for both males and females in the 2011 - 2014 cohort. The SMRs both of females and males with PAD were significantly higher than in the general population. Multivariable regression analyses found no significant differences in mortality risk between sexes at 28 day and one year. However, the five year mortality risk was lower in females, with a hazard ratio of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83 - 0.97) in the 2007 - 2010 cohort and 0.88 (95% CI 0.82 - 0.94) in the 2011 - 2014 cohort. CONCLUSION: The five year mortality risk has increased, and females face a lower mortality risk than males. Lower extremity PAD still carries unfavourable long term consequences compared with the general population.

Dutch cardio-oncology cohort: Incident cardiovascular disease predisposes to a higher cancer mortality rate.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer are the two leading causes of death worldwide. Given their high prevalence, it is important to understand the disease burden of cancer mortality in CVD patients. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate whether patients with incident CVD have a higher risk of malignancy-related mortality, compared to the general population without CVD. METHODS: We performed a national population-based cohort study selecting patients with incident CVD in the Netherlands between 01 April 2000 and 31 December 2005. A reference cohort was selected from the Dutch population using age, sex and ethnicity. Mortality follow-up data were evaluated after data linkage of national registries from Statistics Netherlands until 31 December 2020. RESULTS: A total of 2,240,879 individuals were selected with a mean follow-up of 12 years (range 0.4-21.0), of which 738,666 patients with incident CVD with a mean age of 71 ± 15 years. Malignancy mortality per 1000 person years was 84 for the reference group and 118 for patients with CVD, with the highest rate of 258 in patients with heart failure. Patients with CVD had a higher malignancy mortality risk, compared to the reference group: HR 1.35 (95%CI 1.33-1.36). Highest risks were observed in patients with venous diseases (HR 2.27, 95%CI 2.17-2.36) and peripheral artery disease (HR 1.87, 95%CI 1.84-2.01). CONCLUSION: Results show that CVD predisposes to a higher cancer mortality rate. Of all CVD subtypes, HF patients have the highest cancer mortality rate and the hazards were highest in patients with venous diseases and peripheral artery disease.

Competing risk analysis of cardiovascular disease risk in breast cancer patients receiving a radiation boost.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic radiotherapy may damage the myocardium and arteries, increasing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Women with a high local breast cancer (BC) recurrence risk may receive an additional radiation boost to the tumor bed. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the CVD risk and specifically ischemic heart disease (IHD) in BC patients treated with a radiation boost, and investigated whether this was modified by age. METHODS: We identified 5260 BC patients receiving radiotherapy between 2005 and 2016 without a history of CVD. Boost data were derived from hospital records and the national cancer registry. Follow-up data on CVD events were obtained from Statistics Netherlands until December 31, 2018. The relation between CVD and boost was evaluated with competing risk survival analysis. RESULTS: 1917 (36.4%) received a boost. Mean follow-up was 80.3 months (SD37.1) and the mean age 57.8 years (SD10.7). Interaction between boost and age was observed for IHD: a boost was significantly associated with IHD incidence in patients younger than 40 years but not in patients over 40 years. The subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) was calculated for ages from 25 to 75 years, showing a sHR range from 5.1 (95%CI 1.2-22.6) for 25-year old patients to sHR 0.5 (95%CI 0.2-1.02) for 75-year old patients. CONCLUSION: In patients younger than 40, a radiation boost is significantly associated with an increased risk of CVD. In absolute terms, the increased risk was low. In older patients, there was no association between boost and CVD risk, which is likely a reflection of appropriate patient selection.

Future steps in cardio-oncology-a national multidisciplinary survey among healthcare professionals in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The awareness of cancer therapy-related adverse cardiac effects is fueled by recent literature on cardiotoxicity incidence and detection strategies. Although this influences the sense of urgency, in current practice, cardiotoxicity monitoring and treatment is not structurally performed. With this study, we aimed to evaluate current perspectives on cardio-oncology and to assess needs, ultimately to determine an agenda for improvements in current practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A national multidisciplinary 36-question survey was conducted. The survey was developed by a multidisciplinary team, theoretically based on an implementation checklist and distributed by email, through cardiology and oncology societies as well as social media. RESULTS: One hundred ninety professionals completed the survey, of which 66 were cardiologists, 66 radiation oncologists, and 58 medical oncologists and hematologists. Many professionals were unaware of their specialisms' cardio-oncology guidelines: 62.1% of cardiologists and 29.3% of the hematologists and medical oncologists respectively. Many cardiologists (N = 46; 69.7%), radiation oncologists (N = 45; 68.2%), and hematologists and medical oncologists (N = 38; 65.5%) expressed that they did not have sufficient knowledge to treat cardio-oncology patients and would either refer a patient or aspire to gain more knowledge on the topic. CONCLUSION: The field of cardio-oncology is advancing rapidly, with progress in stratification and detection strategies leading to the development of new guidelines and consensus statements. However, the application of these guidelines in current practice appears to be lagging. Professionals express a need for additional training and a practical guideline including risk stratification, monitoring, and treatment strategies. Multidisciplinary discussion and consensus on cardio-oncology care is vital to improve implementation of cardio-oncology guidelines, ultimately to improve cardiac care for oncology patients.

Quality of life in breast cancer patients with cancer treatment-related cardiac dysfunction: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Although improved breast cancer (BC) treatment has decreased mortality, these anti-cancer regimens may have serious cardiovascular side effects that affect patients' long-term prognosis and quality of life (QoL). BC patients with cancer treatment-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) can suffer from a variety of symptoms, such as dyspnoea and fatigue. The impact of CTRCD after BC treatment on patients' daily life has not been qualitatively explored yet. AIMS: This study aims to explore the influence of CTRCD on QoL of women with BC, as defined by the concept of positive health. Second, we aim to evaluate the personal experience with cardiac surveillance during the BC trajectory. METHODS AND RESULTS: A qualitative study with semi-structured interviews was conducted and thematically analysed to explore the QoL and healthcare experiences of BC patients with CTRCD. Twelve patients participated in this study. Five themes are selected in response to the study objective: (i) patients: overwhelming fatigue, (ii) patients: mental burden of anxiety, (iii) social setting: lack of understanding and acceptance, (iv) medical specialists: lack of knowledge and acknowledgement, and (v) patients: need for personalized care. CONCLUSION: This study identified core components of the impact CTRCD has on the QoL of BC patients. Patients experienced an increased health-related burden due to CTRCD, affecting their physical, social, and psychosocial well-being. Healthcare experiences were largely affected by a lack of acknowledgement and professional communication. Patients underlined the need for personalized care during follow-up.

Oncology professionals' perspectives towards cardiac surveillance in breast cancer patients with high cardiotoxicity risk: A qualitative study.

Breast cancer (BC) patients have an increased risk of developing cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) and cardiovascular morbidity, which seems to have a substantial prognostic impact. Oncologists, in collaboration with dedicated cardiologists, have the opportunity to perform cardiovascular risk stratification. Despite guideline recommendations, strategies to detect cardiac damage at an early stage are not structurally implemented in clinical practice. The perspectives of oncology professionals regarding cardiac surveillance in BC patients have not been qualitatively evaluated. We aim to explore the perceptions of oncology professionals regarding cardiac surveillance in BC patients and, more specifically, the influencing factors of delivering cardiac surveillance. A qualitative study with semi-structured interviews was conducted and thematically analyzed. Twelve oncology professionals participated in this study. Four themes were selected to answer the study objectives: (1) sense of urgency, (2) multidisciplinary collaboration, (3) patient burden, and (4) practical tools for cardiac surveillance. Most professionals did not feel the need to deliver cardiac surveillance as they considered the incidence of CTRCD as rare. Multidisciplinary collaboration was also perceived as unnecessary, and cardiac surveillance was considered disproportionately burdensome with respect to its benefits. Nevertheless, professionals affirmed the need for practical tools to deliver cardiac surveillance. Most professionals are currently unaware of CTRCD incidence and cardiac surveillance benefits. Encouraging multidisciplinary collaboration and improving their knowledge of cardiotoxic effects of treatments and possibility of early detection can lead to structured cardiac surveillance for breast cancer patients.

Instantaneous wave-free ratio guided multivessel revascularisation during percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: study protocol of the randomised controlled iMODERN trial.

INTRODUCTION: Recent randomised clinical trials showed benefit of non-culprit lesion revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. However, it remains unclear whether revascularisation should be performed at the index procedure or at a later stage. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) Guided Multivessel Revascularisation During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction trial is a multicentre, randomised controlled prospective open-label trial with blinded evaluation of endpoints. After successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), eligible STEMI patients with residual non-culprit lesions are randomised, to instantaneous wave-free ratio guided treatment of non-culprit lesions during the index procedure versus deferred cardiac MR-guided management within 4 days to 6 weeks. The primary endpoint of the study is the combined occurrence of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months follow-up. Clinical follow-up includes questionnaires at 3 months and outpatient visits at 6 months and 12 months after primary PCI. Furthermore, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Permission to conduct this trial has been granted by the Medical Ethical Committee of the Amsterdam University Medical Centres (loc. VUmc, ID NL60107.029.16). The primary results of this trial will be shared in a main article and subgroup analyses or spin-off studies will be shared in secondary papers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03298659.

Healthcare utilization and hospital variation in cardiac surveillance during breast cancer treatment: a nationwide prospective study in 5000 Dutch breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Various breast cancer (BC) treatments, such as chemotherapy and targeted therapies, increase cardiotoxicity-risk and lead to premature ischemic heart disease and heart failure among survivors. Reducing this adverse risk through early recognition and (preventive) treatment is therefore important. Conversely, we feel that screening for cardiotoxicity is currently insufficiently standardized in daily practice. A fundamental first step in identifying areas of improvement is providing an overview of current practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe current cardiac surveillance for women with BC during and after cardiotoxic cancer treatment, using routinely collected hospital data in the Netherlands. The study also describes hospital variation in cardiac surveillance. METHODS: This observational study was performed on claims data provided by Statistics Netherlands. From the data, newly diagnosed BC patients in 2013 (N = 16,040) were selected and followed up until 2015. Healthcare utilization analyses were performed for all cardiac and oncologic healthcare activities but with a specific focus on cardiac surveillance healthcare activities. In addition, differences between types and individual hospitals were evaluated. RESULTS: Almost one third of all BC patients received high risk cardiotoxic treatments (N = 5157), but cardiac surveillance was rarely performed. Cardiac care provided to patients mainly consisted of ECGs (52.0%) and MUGA scans (26.5%). Cardiac MRI was performed in 0.7% of the patients, echocardiography in 17.7%, and measurement of Troponin and NT-proBNP in 5.1 and 5.8%, respectively. Moreover, we observed a substantial variation in cardiac surveillance between different hospital types and between individual hospitals. CONCLUSION: This study shows that women treated for BC with cardiotoxic treatments do not receive recommended cardiac surveillance. Standardized approaches in clinical care are lacking, resulting in low rates of diagnostic testing and a substantial variation in surveillance between hospitals. A structured approach and increased interprofessional collaboration could lead to tailored cardiac surveillance for early detection of cardiotoxicity and therefore start of treatment.

Rationale and design of the PRAETORIAN-COVID trial: A double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with valsartan for PRevention of Acute rEspiraTORy dIstress syndrome in hospitAlized patieNts with SARS-COV-2 Infection Disease.

There is much debate on the use of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected patients. Although it has been suggested that ARBs might lead to a higher susceptibility and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection, experimental data suggest that ARBs may reduce acute lung injury via blocking angiotensin-II-mediated pulmonary permeability, inflammation, and fibrosis. However, despite these hypotheses, specific studies on ARBs in SARS-CoV-2 patients are lacking. METHODS: The PRAETORIAN-COVID trial is a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled 1:1 randomized clinical trial in adult hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-infected patients (n = 651). The primary aim is to investigate the effect of the ARB valsartan compared to placebo on the composite end point of admission to an intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, or death within 14 days of randomization. The active-treatment arm will receive valsartan in a dosage titrated to blood pressure up to a maximum of 160 mg bid, and the placebo arm will receive matching placebo. Treatment duration will be 14 days, or until the occurrence of the primary end point or until hospital discharge, if either of these occurs within 14 days. The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04335786, 2020). SUMMARY: The PRAETORIAN-COVID trial is a double-blind, placebo-controlled 1:1 randomized trial to assess the effect of valsartan compared to placebo on the occurrence of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and death in hospitalized SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. The results of this study might impact the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 patients globally.

What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Peer review is at the heart of the scientific process. With the advent of digitisation, journals started to offer electronic articles or publishing online only. A new philosophy regarding the peer review process found its way into academia: the open peer review. Open peer review as practiced by BioMed Central (BMC) is a type of peer review where the names of authors and reviewers are disclosed and reviewer comments are published alongside the article. A number of articles have been published to assess peer reviews using quantitative research. However, no studies exist that used qualitative methods to analyse the content of reviewers' comments. METHODS: A focused mapping review and synthesis (FMRS) was undertaken of manuscripts reporting qualitative research submitted to BMC open access journals from 1 January - 31 March 2018. Free-text reviewer comments were extracted from peer review reports using a 77-item classification system organised according to three key dimensions that represented common themes and sub-themes. A two stage analysis process was employed. First, frequency counts were undertaken that allowed revealing patterns across themes/sub-themes. Second, thematic analysis was conducted on selected themes of the narrative portion of reviewer reports. RESULTS: A total of 107 manuscripts submitted to nine open-access journals were included in the FMRS. The frequency analysis revealed that among the 30 most frequently employed themes "writing criteria" (dimension II) is the top ranking theme, followed by comments in relation to the "methods" (dimension I). Besides that, some results suggest an underlying quantitative mindset of reviewers. Results are compared and contrasted in relation to established reporting guidelines for qualitative research to inform reviewers and authors of frequent feedback offered to enhance the quality of manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: This FMRS has highlighted some important issues that hold lessons for authors, reviewers and editors. We suggest modifying the current reporting guidelines by including a further item called "Degree of data transformation" to prompt authors and reviewers to make a judgment about the appropriateness of the degree of data transformation in relation to the chosen analysis method. Besides, we suggest that completion of a reporting checklist on submission becomes a requirement.

Nurses' perceptions towards the delivery and feasibility of a behaviour change intervention to enhance physical activity in patients at risk for cardiovascular disease in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Self-management support is widely accepted for the management of chronic conditions. Self-management often requires behaviour change in patients, in which primary care nurses play a pivotal role. To support patients in changing their behaviour, the structured behaviour change Activate intervention was developed. This intervention aims to enhance physical activity in patients at risk for cardiovascular disease in primary care as well as to enhance nurses' role in supporting these patients. This study aimed to evaluate nurses' perceptions towards the delivery and feasibility of the Activate intervention. METHODS: A qualitative study nested within a cluster-randomised controlled trial using semistructured interviews was conducted and thematically analysed. Fourteen nurses who delivered the Activate intervention participated. RESULTS: Three key themes emerged concerning nurses' perceptions of delivering the intervention: nurses' engagement towards delivering the intervention; acquiring knowledge and skills; and dealing with adherence to the consultation structure. Three key themes were identified concerning the feasibility of the intervention: expectations towards the use of the intervention in routine practice; perceptions towards the feasibility of the training programme; and enabling personal development. CONCLUSIONS: Delivering a behaviour change intervention is challenged by the complexity of changing nurses' consultation style, including acquiring corresponding knowledge and skills. The findings have increased the understanding of the effectiveness of the Activate trial and will guide the development and evaluation of future behaviour change interventions delivered by nurses in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02725203 .