Key result
Percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a significantly lower risk of 1-year all-cause mortality compared to medical therapy in cancer patients with acute myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 0.503).
Why the study?
Cancer and ischemic heart disease are leading causes of mortality, and the optimal management for patients with concomitant acute myocardial infarction and cancer remains challenging.
Does percutaneous coronary intervention reduce in-hospital adverse events and 1-year mortality in cancer patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=119)
No
Does percutaneous coronary intervention reduce in-hospital adverse events and 1-year mortality in cancer patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Hazard Ratio: 0.503 (95% CI 0.243–0.947)
Absolute Event Rate: 27.3% vs 64.3%
p-value: p=0.045
In cancer patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction, performing PCI is associated with reduced in-hospital adverse events and improved 1-year survival compared to conservative management.
May support PCI decisions in cancer patients with AMI; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Background Cancer and ischemic heart disease are the leading causes of mortality. The optimal management for patients with concomitant acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cancer remains challenging. Objective To evaluate in-hospital and 1-year adverse outcomes in cancer patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat AMI. Methods This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study, patients with cancer admitted to The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University for AMI and discharged between January 2015 and June 2020 were analyzed. The outcomes were all-cause mortality at 1-year follow up and incidence of in-hospital adverse events, including arrhythmias, heart failure, major bleeding, stroke, and all-cause death. Results A total of 119 patients were included, of these, 68 (57.1%) received PCI (PCI group) and 51 (42.9%) did not (non-PCI group). Patients in the PCI group had a lower incidence of in-hospital arrhythmias (22.1 vs. 39.2%; p = 0.042), major bleeding (2.9 vs. 15.7%; p = 0.013), and all-cause mortality (1.5 vs. 11.8%; p = 0.018) than those in non-PCI group. On 1-year follow-up, the PCI group had a lower all-cause mortality than the non-PCI group (log-rank test = 14.65; p < 0.001). Multivariable Cox regression showed that PCI is an independent protective factor (adjusted HR = 0.503 [0.243–0.947], p = 0.045) for cancer patients who have concomitant AMI. Conclusion Cancer patients receiving PCI for AMI had a lower risk of in-hospital adverse events and mortality as well as 1-year all-cause mortality compared to those who refused PCI. Our study therefore supports the use of PCI to improve prognosis of this selected group of patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tang et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction and cancer (n=119). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. No PCI (medical therapy) was evaluated on All-cause mortality at 1-year follow-up (adjusted HR 0.503, 95% CI 0.243-0.947, p=0.045). Percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a significantly lower risk of 1-year all-cause mortality compared to medical therapy in cancer patients with acute myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 0.503).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: