Serban Mihai Balanescu1, Dinu Valentin Balanescu2, Teodora Donisan1,2, Eric H Yang3, Nicolas Palaskas2, Juan Lopez-Mattei2, Saamir Hassan2, Peter Kim2, Mehmet Cilingiroglu4, Konstantinos Marmagkiolis5, Biswajit Kar6, Cezar Iliescu7. 1. Department of Cardiology, Elias Emergency University Hospital, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania. 2. Department of Cardiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler Street, Unit 1451, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 3. UCLA Cardio-Oncology Program, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Bahcesehir University, School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey. 5. Florida Hospital Pepin Heart Institute, Tampa, FL, USA. 6. Center for Advanced Heart Failure, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston, TX, USA. 7. Department of Cardiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler Street, Unit 1451, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. ciliescu@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Aging is associated with an increased prevalence of both cancer and heart disease. The progression of aortic valve calcification to aortic stenosis may be accelerated by both cardiovascular risk factors and cancer treatments, such as radiotherapy with mediastinal involvement. Symptomatic aortic stenosis is occasionally diagnosed in cancer patients undergoing cardiovascular evaluation; likewise, cancer is often recognized during assessment preceding aortic valve interventions. In these complex cases, physicians face difficult treatment decisions. Due to a myriad of clinical presentations of cancer and valve disease, specific guidelines for this patient population are not currently in place. Management is currently based on clinical judgment, on an individual basis. RECENT FINDINGS: Patients with cancer in remission or with a favorable prognosis should be treated according to current cardiovascular guidelines. In these patients, aortic valve replacement can be performed either by surgery or transcatheter. Significant challenges arise in patients with active cancer, especially those receiving anti-cancer treatment. Recent data suggests that these patients can be offered aortic valve replacement, with a trend of favoring the transcatheter route in order to minimize perioperative risk and complications associated with major surgery. Patients with advanced cancer and severe aortic stenosis should be offered palliative care and can benefit from aortic balloon valvuloplasty if indicated. Modern cancer treatments associated with improved long-term prognosis may allow the appropriate cure of aortic stenosis. We discuss the protocol, outcomes, and evolving recommendations of aortic valve replacement in cancer patients with aortic stenosis.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Aging is associated with an increased prevalence of both cancer and heart disease. The progression of aortic valve calcification to aortic stenosis may be accelerated by both cardiovascular risk factors and cancer treatments, such as radiotherapy with mediastinal involvement. Symptomatic aortic stenosis is occasionally diagnosed in cancerpatients undergoing cardiovascular evaluation; likewise, cancer is often recognized during assessment preceding aortic valve interventions. In these complex cases, physicians face difficult treatment decisions. Due to a myriad of clinical presentations of cancer and valve disease, specific guidelines for this patient population are not currently in place. Management is currently based on clinical judgment, on an individual basis. RECENT FINDINGS:Patients with cancer in remission or with a favorable prognosis should be treated according to current cardiovascular guidelines. In these patients, aortic valve replacement can be performed either by surgery or transcatheter. Significant challenges arise in patients with active cancer, especially those receiving anti-cancer treatment. Recent data suggests that these patients can be offered aortic valve replacement, with a trend of favoring the transcatheter route in order to minimize perioperative risk and complications associated with major surgery. Patients with advanced cancer and severe aortic stenosis should be offered palliative care and can benefit from aortic balloon valvuloplasty if indicated. Modern cancer treatments associated with improved long-term prognosis may allow the appropriate cure of aortic stenosis. We discuss the protocol, outcomes, and evolving recommendations of aortic valve replacement in cancerpatients with aortic stenosis.
Authors: Itsik Ben-Dor; Ron Waksman; Nicholas N Hanna; Arnold Raizon; Lowell F Satler; Rebecca Torguson; Gaby Weissman; Petros Okubagzi; Zhenyi Xue; Yanlin Li; Manuel A Gonzalez; Gabriel Maluenda; Michael A Gaglia; Kohei Wakabayashi; Cedric Delhaye; Asmir I Syed; Sara D Collins; William O Suddath; Kenneth M Kent; Joseph Lindsay; Augusto D Pichard Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2010-04-02 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Martin B Leon; Craig R Smith; Michael Mack; D Craig Miller; Jeffrey W Moses; Lars G Svensson; E Murat Tuzcu; John G Webb; Gregory P Fontana; Raj R Makkar; David L Brown; Peter C Block; Robert A Guyton; Augusto D Pichard; Joseph E Bavaria; Howard C Herrmann; Pamela S Douglas; John L Petersen; Jodi J Akin; William N Anderson; Duolao Wang; Stuart Pocock Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-09-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Pompilio Faggiano; Silvia Frattini; Valentina Zilioli; Andrea Rossi; Stefano Nistri; Frank L Dini; Roberto Lorusso; Cesare Tomasi; Livio Dei Cas Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2011-03-03 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Vuyisile T Nkomo; Julius M Gardin; Thomas N Skelton; John S Gottdiener; Christopher G Scott; Maurice Enriquez-Sarano Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-09-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Yolanda Carrascal; Javier Gualis; Adolfo Arévalo; Enrique Fulquet; Santiago Flórez; Juvenal Rey; José R Echevarría; Salvatore Di Stefano; Luis Fiz Journal: Rev Esp Cardiol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 4.753
Authors: Harry Hemingway; Alison McCallum; Martin Shipley; Kristiina Manderbacka; Pekka Martikainen; Ilmo Keskimäki Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-03-22 Impact factor: 56.272