Why the study?
Does infusion anthracycline therapy prevent long-term myocardial dysfunction compared to bolus therapy in childhood cancer survivors?
Does infusion anthracycline therapy prevent long-term myocardial dysfunction compared to bolus therapy in childhood cancer survivors?
There was no statistically significant difference in long-term diminished cardiac function between childhood cancer survivors who received bolus versus infusion anthracycline therapy.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Infusion anthracyclines were not associated with reduced long-term dysfunction; leaves open benefit and should not yet change practice in survivors.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term myocardial function of patients who had been treated with infusion anthracycline therapy (administered continuously over >24 hr, IG) versus bolus therapy (administered over <30 min, BG). METHODS: We selected 25 patients (BG) and 19 patients (IG) who had three or more years of disease free survival. We evaluated the echocardiograms for left ventricular shortening fraction (SF) obtained at baseline, within one year after the end of therapy (early follow-up), and on long-term follow-up. RESULTS: The mean anthracycline dose in the BG was 385 mg/m(2) and in the IG was 345 mg/m(2) (P = 0.07). During therapy, one patient in BG and none in IG developed diminished SF. During early follow-up, five of the 22 patients in BG and one of the 17 patients in IG developed diminished SF (P = 0.2). Of these five patients with diminished SF, three patients in BG and none in IG continued to have abnormally low SF long-term. At mean of 7 years, five of the 25 patients in BG and two of the 19 in IG had diminished SF on (P = 0.7). Late left ventricular dilatation was seen in 8% in BG and 5% in IG (P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: At mean of 7 years after end of therapy, diminished cardiac function was seen in 20% of the patient who had received bolus anthracycline compared to 11% of patients who had received it via infusion. This difference did not prove to be statistically significant.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gupta‐Malhotra et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: