PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 2, 2026Srce i krvni sudovi0 citationsOpen Access

Percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with malignancies

SSSonja S SalingerInterventional CardiologyTKTomislav L. KostićUniversity of NisSASvetlana Apostolović

Key Result

Percutaneous coronary interventions are likely the best treatment option for cancer patients with acceptable prognosis and acute coronary syndrome, despite their higher risks of complications and mortality.

Key Points

  • This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in cancer patients with concurrent cardiovascular diseases.
  • Evaluated the impact of PCI on cancer patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
  • Discussed the risks associated with chemo and radiation therapy on cardiovascular health.
  • Outlined the necessity for individualized management strategies within a cardiooncology team.
  • PCI shows potential to improve outcomes in cancer patients with CAD and ACS.
  • Conservative treatment did not enhance survival rates among patients with concurrent malignancies and cardiovascular issues.
  • Awareness of complications from cancer treatments is crucial for managing cardiovascular risks.

Structured PICO

Does percutaneous coronary intervention improve survival compared to a conservative approach in cancer patients with acute coronary syndrome?

P
Population
Cancer patients or cancer survivors with concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) or acute coronary syndrome (ACS)
I
Intervention
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)
C
Comparator
Conservative approach
O
Outcome
Survival rates / cardiovascular morbidity and mortality

Well-planned PCI is likely the best treatment option for cancer patients with ACS and an acceptable prognosis, as conservative management does not improve survival.

Main Result

Effect estimate: null (95% CI null)

p-value: p=null

Limitations

  • Insufficient representation of cancer patients in randomized studies
  • Limited evidence regarding optimal treatment strategies
  • Limited evidence available

Abstract

Cardiac disease and cancer are two of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The development of screening, diagnosis and treatment of both diseases and also primary and secondary prevention has resulted in an increase of cancer survivors with concomitant cardiovascular diseases. Cancer patients are on increased risk of CAD and ACS. Chemo and radiation therapy induced coronary artery injury and the increased risk of thrombosis result in higher risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality rate. Conservative approach in treatment of patients with ACS and any type of malignancies do not improve survival rates. In the majority of cancer patients with acceptable prognosis or cancer survivors, well planned and performed PCI is probably the best option. Physicians and medical stuff must be aware of the potential complications of cancer therapies. The management of cancer patients with acute and chronic coronary artery diseases should be individualized and discussed within the acute cardiooncology team. In terms of limited evidences, future studies are needed for investigation of well-balanced treatment strategies and improvement in survival outcome.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Salinger et al. (2021) conducted a review in malignancy. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. conservative approach was evaluated on hospital mortality and procedural complications in cancer patients undergoing PCI (null, 95% CI null, p=null). Percutaneous coronary interventions are likely the best treatment option for cancer patients with acceptable prognosis and acute coronary syndrome, despite their higher risks of complications and mortality.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6980ff19c1c9540dea811cd6https://doi.org/10.5937/siks2102098q
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper