Outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cancer

Abstract

BackgroundRandomized clinical trials demonstrated the benefits of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in diverse clinical settings. Patients with cancer were not routinely included in these studies. Methods/resultsLiterature search of PubMed, Cochrane, Medline, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials was conducted to identify studies that assessed one-year all-cause, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality in patients with historical or active cancer. Using the random effects model, we computed risk ratios (RRs) and standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals for the dichotomous and continuous measures and outcomes, respectively. Of 171 articles evaluated in total, 5 eligible studies were included in this meta-analysis. In total, 33,175 patients receiving PCI were analyzed, of whom 3323 patients had cancer and 29,852 no cancer history. Patients in the cancer group had greater all-cause mortality [RR 2.22 (1.51–3.26; p<0.001)], including cardiovascular mortality [RR 1.34 (1.1–1.65; p=0.005)] and non-cardiovascular mortality [RR 3.42 (1.74–6.74; p≤0.001], at one-year compared to non-cancer patients. Patients in the cancer group had greater one-month all-cause mortality [RR 2.01 (1.24–3.27; p=0.005)] and greater non-cardiovascular mortality [RR 6.87 (3.10–15.21; p≤0.001)], but no difference in one-month cardiovascular mortality compared to non-cancer patients. Meta-regression analyses showed that the difference in one-year all-cause and cardiovascular mortality between both groups was not attributable to differences in baseline characteristics, index PCI characteristics, or medications prescribed at discharge. ConclusionsPatients with cancer undergoing PCI have worse mid-term outcomes compared to non-cancer patients. Cancer patients should be managed by a multi-specialist team, in an effort to close the mortality gap.