Key result
Review outlines clinical considerations and appropriateness criteria for revascularisation in cancer patients.
Why the study?
Improved cancer prognosis has rendered conservative approaches outdated, but revascularisation in cancer patients remains challenging as they become increasingly common in catheterisation laboratories.
Advances in cancer therapy have improved prognosis, making revascularisation an appropriate consideration for cancer patients despite management challenges.
Individualize revascularisation in selected cancer patients; leaves open dedicated trials to define selection, timing, and technique.
The emerging field of cardio-oncology has grown considerably over the past two decades. While the issue of myocardial cardiotoxicity has received the most attention, it is now recognised that cardio-oncology encompasses the full spectrum of cardiovascular disease, which includes invasive therapy as part of management. Historically, these were seldom considered in cancer patients, due to their perceived poor prognosis and high risk of complications. However, advances in diagnosis and therapy have improved the prognosis and lifespan of patients with cancer, rendering a generally conservative approach no longer appropriate. Despite this, their management remains challenging, perhaps more so than in any other subset of patients. As patients with cancer become increasingly more common in catheterisation laboratories, we review the issue of revascularisation in this patient subset to address three major issues: available evidence, appropriateness of revascularisation, and specific factors to consider when performing revascularisation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Menezes et al. (2026) conducted a review in Cancer and cardiovascular disease requiring revascularisation. Revascularisation was evaluated. This review discusses the available evidence, appropriateness, and specific factors to consider when performing revascularisation in patients with cancer.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: