Transcatheter aortic valve replacement reduced 1-year all-cause mortality to 15% versus 19.1% with surgical replacement in high-risk patients, with comparable short-term mortality in cancer patients.
Do catheter-based valvular and structural interventions improve safety and efficacy outcomes in cancer patients?
Catheter-based structural interventions offer a safe, minimally invasive alternative to surgery for cancer patients, providing comparable short-term benefits while minimizing disruptions to essential oncologic therapies.
Effect estimate: HR or RR not explicitly stated, but mortality 15% vs 19.1% favoring TAVR at 1 year
Absolute Event Rate: 15% vs 19.1%
p-value: p=0.04 for mortality difference in CoreValve trial; p<0.001 for 1-year mortality higher in cancer vs non-cancer in oncology registry
This review examines the evolving role of catheter‐based valvular and structural interventions in cancer patients. We sought to answer whether minimally invasive approaches, including transcatheter aortic valve replacement, mitral valve repair, left atrial appendage occlusion, and patent foramen ovale closure, provide safe and effective treatments in high‐risk oncologic populations. Emerging research indicates that these interventions yield comparable short‐term outcomes in cancer and non‐cancer patients, with reduced procedural complications, lower bleeding risks, and improved recovery times. Studies also suggest that careful patient selection and tailored antithrombotic management are critical, as long‐term survival is affected by the underlying malignancy. Our review concludes that catheter‐based interventions offer significant benefits in managing cardiovascular complications in cancer patients. Future investigations should focus on refining selection criteria, optimizing perioperative care, and evaluating long‐term outcomes to enhance interdisciplinary treatment strategies. These findings pave the way for improved care via a tailored approach to patients with both cancer and cardiovascular disease.
Joudi et al. (Wed,) conducted a review in Patients with cancer and severe aortic stenosis or valvular heart disease undergoing catheter-based valvular interventions. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or conservative treatment was evaluated on All-cause mortality at 1 year (HR or RR not explicitly stated, but mortality 15% vs 19.1% favoring TAVR at 1 year, p=p=0.04 for mortality difference in CoreValve trial; p<0.001 for 1-year mortality higher in cancer vs non-cancer in oncology registry). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement reduced 1-year all-cause mortality to 15% versus 19.1% with surgical replacement in high-risk patients, with comparable short-term mortality in cancer patients.