F-90 | The Ischemia–Bleeding Paradox After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Cancer. A Propensity-Matched Real-World Analysis

Q: What does this research mean for the field?

Percutaneous mechanical aspiration is a viable and less invasive alternative to surgical resection for the removal and diagnostic evaluation of intracardiac masses in high-risk surgical patients. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.METHODOLOGICAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

David Rodríguez; Guy Nguefang; Jorge Irizarry-Caro; Alejandro Jose Herrera

doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2026.105202

April 1, 2026Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsOpen Access

F-90 | The Ischemia–Bleeding Paradox After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Cancer. A Propensity-Matched Real-World Analysis

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Why the study?

Emerging techniques like percutaneous mechanical aspiration provide a less invasive approach to remove and characterize intracardiac masses, especially in patients who are poor surgical candidates.

Does a history of cancer affect ischemic and bleeding outcomes in adults undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?

Key Points

To evaluate ischemic and bleeding outcomes in patients with cancer undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention compared with non-cancer controls.
Conducted a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort analysis of adults undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from the NetX US Collaborative Network.
Balanced baseline demographics, comorbidities, and cardiovascular medications between patients with a diagnosis or history of malignancy and non-cancer controls.
Evaluated outcomes occurring from 1 to 365 days after percutaneous coronary intervention, including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, and overall bleeding.
At one year, cancer patients had a lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with non-cancer patients (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85–0.93; HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.81–0.88).
Cancer patients experienced significantly higher risks of intracranial hemorrhage (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.16–1.41), gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.54–1.71), and overall bleeding (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.48–1.63) at one year.

Structured PICO

Does a history of cancer affect ischemic and bleeding outcomes in adults undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?

P

Population

Adults undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a diagnosis or history of malignancy, from the NetX US Collaborative Network.

I

Intervention

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)

C

Comparator

Adults without cancer undergoing PCI (1:1 propensity score matched to balance baseline demographics, comorbidities, and cardiovascular medications)

O

Outcome

Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) occurring from 1 to 365 days after PCIcomposite

Limitations

Selection bias of PCI-eligible cancer patients
Competing risks

Ask about this paper

Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.

Implication

In a real-world propensity-matched cohort, cancer patients undergoing PCI had lower ischemic events but markedly higher bleeding risks at one year compared to non-cancer patients, highlighting the need for individualized antithrombotic strategies.

Abstract

No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Cite This Study

Rodríguez et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69edab424a46254e215b349f https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2026.105202

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

F-90 | The Ischemia–Bleeding Paradox After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Cancer. A Propensity-Matched Real-World Analysis

Key Points

Structured PICO

Limitations

Ask about this paper

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

F-90 | The Ischemia–Bleeding Paradox After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Cancer. A Propensity-Matched Real-World Analysis

Key Points

Structured PICO

Limitations

Ask about this paper

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Keep reading

Keep reading