Key result
Invasive ACS treatment in active cancer is linked to ~63% lower 1-year mortality.
Why the study?
The diagnosis and management of acute coronary syndrome in patients hospitalized for cancer constitutes a therapeutic challenge.
Does an invasive strategy and aspirin use improve survival in patients with active cancer and ACS?
Cohort (n=36)
No
Does an invasive strategy and aspirin use improve survival in patients with active cancer and ACS?
Hazard Ratio: 0.37 (95% CI 0.15–0.92)
An invasive approach and aspirin use are associated with better 1-year survival in patients with active cancer and ACS, regardless of cancer stage and eligibility for cancer treatment.
Invasive strategy and aspirin use were associated with better survival in cancer patients with ACS; leaves open optimal management pending prospective trials.
The diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with cancer constitutes a therapeutic challenge. We aimed to assess the clinical presentation and management of ACS as well as 1-year survival in patients hospitalized for cancer.This retrospective study included patients hospitalized between 2012 and 2018 in a nonacademic center. The inclusion criteria were diagnosis of active cancer and ACS recognized using standard criteria. Patients were assessed with respect to invasive or conservative ACS strategy. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, and the secondary endpoint was cardiovascular mortality during 1-year follow-up.We screened 25,165 patients, of whom 36 (0.14%) had ACS (mean [SD] age, 71.9 [9.8] years). The most common presentation was non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (61% of patients). Coronary angiography was performed in 47% of patients, while 53% were treated conservatively. Overall, the primary endpoint occurred in 67% of patients and secondary endpoint in 28% during follow-up. The predictors of better outcome in a univariate analysis were invasive strategy, lack of metastases, aspirin use, and no cardiogenic shock. Invasive treatment and aspirin use remained significant predictors of better survival when adjusted for the presence of metastases (hazard ratio [HR] 0.37, confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.92 and HR 0.39, CI 0.16-0.94, respectively) and ineligibility for cancer treatment (HR 0.37, CI 0.15-0.93 and HR 0.30, CI 0.12-0.73, respectively).The incidence of ACS in cancer patients is low but 1-year mortality rates are high. Guideline-recommended management was frequently underused. Our results suggest that invasive approach and aspirin use are associated with better survival regardless of cancer stage and eligibility for cancer treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Styczkiewicz et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Acute coronary syndrome in patients with cancer (n=36). Invasive strategy vs. Conservative strategy was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15-0.92). Invasive treatment for acute coronary syndrome in patients with active cancer was associated with improved 1-year survival (HR 0.37; 95% CI 0.15-0.92).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: