ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cancer and cardiovascular diseases are the main causes of mortality worldwide. Although the incidence of cancer is rising, modern comprehensive management including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy led to decreased mortality, but also different cardiovascular complications. Conventional EF measurement fails to detect subtle changes in LV function, so a more sensitive tool is needed. METHODS: The study included 101 asymptomatic female patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer who received anthracycline ± trastuzumab-based chemotherapy regimen. A comprehensive echocardiographic examination was performed before receiving the chemotherapy (T0), at 3 months (T1), and at 6 months after (T2). All patients had pre-treatment normal LV EF. Asymptomatic CTRCD is defined as: severe if new LVEF reduction to < 40%, moderate if new LVEF reduction by ≥ 10 percentage points to an LVEF of 40-49% or new LVEF reduction by, 10 percentage points to an LVEF of 40- 49% and either new relative decline in GLS by .15% from baseline or new rise in cardiac biomarkers and mild if LVEF ≥ 50% and new relative decline in GLS by .15% from baseline and/or new rise in cardiac biomarkers. Symptomatic CTRCD is defined as: very severe if HF requiring inotropic support, mechanical circulatory support, or consideration of transplantation, severe if required hospitalization, moderate if required outpatient intensification of diuretic and HF therapy and mild if there are mild HF symptoms and no intensification of therapy required according to the latest ESC cardio oncology guidelines. The Lower reference value set for RV S' was less than 10cm/s to define RV systolic dysfunction according to ASE guidelines. RESULTS: CTRCD occurred in 24 patients (25.5%) while RV systolic dysfunction was more common occurring in 37 patients (39.4%). LV GLS at (T1) (cut-off value < -15% with relative 12.5% reduction from the baseline value) was a strong predictor of CTRCD, but combining LV GLS with RV GLS & RV FWLS was the strongest (AUC = 0.947, sensitivity = 91.67%, specificity = 90%). CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy induces biventricular changes with more prevalent deterioration in RV values. Low LV & RV strain values at baseline together with reduction of these values after chemotherapy treatment can predict later CTRCD development. Combining LV GLS with RV GLS & FWLS values at (T1) is the strongest predictor of subsequent CTRCD.
Subject(s)
Coronary Angiography/methods , Coronary Artery Disease/diagnosis , Coronary Artery Disease/surgery , Femoral Artery , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/methods , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Radial Artery , Arteriovenous Fistula/epidemiology , Hematoma/epidemiology , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Patient Satisfaction , Radiation DosageABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of mortality worldwide. Coronary artery disease (CAD) contributes to half of mortalities caused by CVD. The mainstay of management of CAD is medical therapy and revascularisation. Revascularisation can be achieved via coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Peripheral arteries, such as the femoral or radial artery, provide the access to the coronary arteries to perform diagnostic or therapeutic (or both) procedures. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of the transradial compared to the transfemoral approach in people with CAD undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) or PCI (or both). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials on 10 October 2017: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2017. There were no language restrictions. Reference lists were also checked and we contacted authors of included studies for further information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared transradial and transfemoral approaches in adults (18 years of age or older) undergoing diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) for CAD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. At least two authors independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted trial authors for missing information. We used risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were checked by another author. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 31 studies (44 reports) including 27,071 participants and two ongoing studies. The risk of bias in the studies was low or unclear for several domains. Compared to the transfemoral approach, the transradial approach reduced short-term net adverse clinical events (NACE) (i.e. assessed during hospitalisation and up to 30 days of follow-up) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.94; 17,133 participants; 4 studies; moderate quality evidence), cardiac death (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88; 11,170 participants; 11 studies; moderate quality evidence). However, short-term myocardial infarction was similar between both groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 19,430 participants; 11 studies; high quality evidence). The transradial approach had a lower procedural success rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.98; 25,920 participants; 28 studies; moderate quality evidence), but was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95; 18,955 participants; 10 studies; high quality evidence), bleeding (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74; 23,043 participants; 20 studies; low quality evidence), and access site complications (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59; 16,112 participants; 24 studies; low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Transradial approach for diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) in CAD may reduce short-term NACE, cardiac death, all-cause mortality, bleeding, and access site complications. There is insufficient evidence regarding the long-term clinical outcomes (i.e. beyond 30 days of follow-up).