Dataset Information

Ischemia and Bleeding in Cancer Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to evaluate ischemic and bleeding outcomes of unselected cancer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Background

The number of cancer patients undergoing PCI is increasing despite concerns regarding ischemic and bleeding risks.

Methods

Between 2009 and 2017, consecutive patients undergoing PCI were prospectively included in the Bern PCI Registry. Cancer-specific data including type, date of initial diagnosis, and health status at index PCI were collected. We performed propensity score matching to adjust for baseline differences between patients with and without cancer. The primary ischemic endpoint was the device-oriented composite endpoint (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization) at 1 year, and the primary bleeding endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2 to 5 at 1 year.

Results

Among 13,647 patients, 1,368 (10.0%) had an established diagnosis of cancer. The 3 leading cancer types were prostate (n = 294), gastrointestinal tract (n = 188), and hematopoietic (n = 177). At index PCI, 179 (13.1%) patients were receiving active cancer treatment. In matched analysis, there was no significant difference in device-oriented composite endpoint (11.5% vs. 10.2%; p = 0.251), whereas cardiac death and BARC 2 to 5 bleeding occurred more frequently among patients with cancer compared with those without cancer (6.8% vs. 4.5%; p = 0.010 and 8.0% vs. 6.0%; p = 0.026, respectively). Cancer diagnosis within 1 year before PCI emerged as an independent predictor for cardiac death and BARC 2 to 5 bleeding at 1 year.

Conclusions

Cancer patients carry an increased risk of cardiac mortality that was not associated with stent-related ischemic events among patients undergoing PCI in routine clinical practice. Higher risk of bleeding in cancer patients undergoing PCI deserves particular attention. (CARDIOBASE Bern PCI Registry; NCT02241291).

SUBMITTER: Ueki Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8352169 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Bleeding complications of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are strongly associated with adverse patient outcomes, and gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is the most common major bleeding event, especially in the early post-PCI period. Current guidelines recommend routinely conducting bleeding risk assessments. The existing tools are mainly used to evaluate the overall bleeding risk and guide the adjustment of antithrombotic strategies after 1 year. However, there are no specific tools for GIB risk assessment.Between January 2015 and June 2015, 4943 ACS patients underwent PCI were consecutively enrolled in the derivation cohort. GIB, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular events were recorded within 1 year of follow-up. A validation cohort including 1000 patients who met the same inclusion and exclusion criteria was also established by propensity-score matching baseline characteristics. Multivariable cox proportional-hazards regression model was used to derive a risk-scoring system, and predictive variables were selected. A risk score nomogram based on the risk prediction model was created to estimate the 1-year risk of GIB.In this study, we found that the usage of clopidogrel (hazard ratio, HR: 2.52, 95% confidence intervals, CI: 1.573-4.021) and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors (HR: 1.863, 95% CI: 1.226-2.829), history of peptic ulcers (HR: 3.601, 95% CI: 1.226-2.829) or tumor (HR: 4.884, 95% CI: 1.226-2.829), and cardiac insufficiency (HR: 11.513, 95% CI: 7.282-18.202), renal insufficiency (HR: 2.010, 95% CI: 1.350-2.993), and prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (HR: 4.639, 95% CI: 2.146-10.032) were independent risk factors for GIB 1 year after PCI. Based on these 7 factors, a nomogram and scoring system was established. The area under curve of risk score was 0.824 in the deviation cohort and 0.810 in the verification cohort. In both cohorts, the GIB score was significantly better than that of 3 classical bleeding scores (all P?<?.05).This score could well predict the risk of GIB within 1 year after PCI and could be used to guide antithrombotic strategies.