Key result
Active or prior cancer shows no link to lower PCI rates in STEMI or NSTEMI.
Its licence doesn't allow us to show a copy here.
Why the study?
The coexistence of cancer and acute myocardial infarction is increasingly common, yet contemporary real-world evidence on management and outcomes remains limited.
Does active or prior cancer status affect the performance of PCI and in-hospital outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Observational (n=2,797)
Yes
Does active or prior cancer status affect the performance of PCI and in-hospital outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Absolute Event Rate: 95.6% vs 94%
p-value: p=0.42
In a contemporary Italian registry, AMI patients with active or prior cancer received PCI at similar rates to those without cancer, though they experienced higher rates of major bleeding in the setting of NSTEMI.
Similar PCI rates across cancer status in AMI support inclusive invasive strategies; leaves open bleeding optimization and long-term outcomes.
BACKGROUND: The coexistence of cancer and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is increasingly common, yet contemporary real-world evidence on management and outcomes remains limited. We compared AMI characteristics, treatment, and in-hospital outcomes according to cancer status. METHODS: We analysed EYESHOT-2, a nationwide prospective registry of consecutive patients admitted to Italian cardiac care units with confirmed STEMI or NSTEMI. Patients were classified as having active cancer, prior cancer, or no cancer. Clinical characteristics, coronary angiography, revascularization, and in-hospital outcomes were compared across groups. RESULTS: Among 2,797 patients with cancer-status data, 98 (3.5%) had active cancer and 135 (4.8%) had prior cancer. In STEMI, PCI was performed in 95.6%, 97.1%, and 94.0% of patients with active, prior, and no cancer, respectively (p = 0.65); corresponding NSTEMI rates were 69.8%, 73.8%, and 73.3% (p = 0.84). After adjustment, cancer status was not significantly associated with non-performance of PCI in STEMI (global p = 0.42) or NSTEMI (global p = 0.78). Unadjusted in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly across groups. Major bleeding was more frequent across cancer-status groups in NSTEMI (5.7%, 4.6%, and 1.7%; p = 0.03), but not in STEMI. CONCLUSIONS: Among AMI patients admitted to participating Italian cardiac care units, cancer status was not significantly associated with non-performance of PCI after multivariable adjustment in either STEMI or NSTEMI. Mortality and bleeding comparisons were unadjusted and limited by small cancer subgroups and few events. The findings should not be interpreted as demonstrating equivalent management or prognosis, or causal treatment effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Greco et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (n=2,797). Active or prior cancer vs. No cancer was evaluated on PCI performance in STEMI (p=0.42). Active or prior cancer status in AMI patients was not significantly associated with non-performance of PCI after multivariable adjustment in either STEMI (global p=0.42) or NSTEMI (global p=0.78).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: