Cardiovascular disease and lung cancer.

Lung cancer is the second most common cancer worldwide and the leading cause of cancer-related death. While survival rates have improved with advancements in cancer therapeutics, additional health challenges have surfaced. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with lung cancer. CVD and lung cancer share many risk factors, such as smoking, hypertension, diabetes, advanced age, and obesity. Optimal management of this patient population requires a full understanding of the potential cardiovascular (CV) complications of lung cancer treatment. This review outlines the common shared risk factors, the spectrum of cardiotoxicities associated with lung cancer therapeutics, and prevention and management of short- and long-term CVD in patients with non-small cell (NSCLC) and small cell (SCLC) lung cancer. Due to the medical complexity of these patients, multidisciplinary collaborative care among oncologists, cardiologists, primary care physicians, and other providers is essential.

Cardiac Cachexia in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients and the Implications of Weight Gain Early After Implantation.

Background Severe cardiac cachexia or malnutrition are commonly considered relative contraindications to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, but post-LVAD prognosis for patients with cachexia is uncertain. Methods and Results Intermacs (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) 2006 to 2017 was queried for the preimplantation variable cachexia/malnutrition. Cox proportional hazards modeling examined the relationship between cachexia and LVAD outcomes. Of 20 332 primary LVAD recipients with available data, 516 (2.54%) were reported to have baseline cachexia and had higher risk baseline characteristics. Cachexia was associated with higher mortality during LVAD support (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.36 [95% CI, 1.18-1.56]; P<0.0001), persisting after adjustment for baseline characteristics (adjusted HR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.0-1.42]; P=0.005). Mean weight change at 12 months was +3.9±9.4 kg. Across the cohort, weight gain ≥5% during the first 3 months of LVAD support was associated with lower mortality (unadjusted HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.84-0.98]; P=0.012; adjusted HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.82-0.97]; P=0.006). Conclusions The proportion of LVAD recipients recognized to have cachexia preimplantation was low at 2.5%. Recognized cachexia was independently associated with higher mortality during LVAD support. Early weight gain ≥5% was independently associated with lower mortality during subsequent LVAD support.

Correlating muscle resection with functional swallow outcomes: An anatomic framework informed systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of studies reporting swallow-associated outcomes in patients who received surgery for head and neck cancer (HNC), informed by an anatomic and physiologic framework of pharyngeal phase of swallowing (Pearson's dual-sling model). METHODS: PUBMED and Google Scholar databases were searched for peer-reviewed papers published between 1990 and 2019 using relevant MeSH terms. Exclusion criteria were 1) discussions comparing reconstruction techniques, 2) case-report/series (n < 10), 3) perspective articles, 4) papers comparing objective instrumental methods of swallowing evaluation, 5) animal/cadaver studies, 6) no instrumental or validated swallow assessment tools used, 7) papers that discuss/include radiotherapy treatment, 8) systematic reviews, 9) papers that discuss swallow training or rehabilitation methods. Two investigators reviewed papers meeting inclusion/exclusions criteria. Muscles resected, anatomic resection site, swallow outcomes, and patient treatment variables were collected. RESULTS: A total of 115,020 peer-reviewed papers were identified. 74 papers were relevant to this review, 18 met inclusion and exclusion criteria, and none discussed surgical impact on the pharyngeal phase of swallowing using Pearson's dual-sling model. Most papers discussed the effect of tongue-base, supraglottic, or regional anatomic resection. Post-surgical resection Follow-up times ranged from 1 to 13 months. 67% of studies used objective instrumental swallow studies; 22% used patient reported outcome measures. Follow up time since surgical resection, time to feeding tube removal, feeding tube present/absent, aspiration severity were used to define dysphagia endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: To date, no surgical HNC studies have used the dual-sling mechanism to guide study design, and dysphagia assessment has been inconsistent. To counsel patients on the effects of surgery on pharyngeal phase of swallow function, specialists need physiologically grounded research that correlates muscles resected with consistent measures of swallow function.