Patients with cancer are at risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) including atherosclerotic heart disease (AHD), valvular heart disease (VHD), and atrial fibrillation (AF). Advances in percutaneous catheter-based treatments, including percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for AHD, percutaneous valve replacement or repair for VHD, and ablation and left atrial appendage occlusion devices (LAAODs) for AF, have provided patients with CVD significant benefit in the recent decades. However, trials and registries investigating outcomes of these procedures often exclude patients with cancer. As a result, patients with cancer are less likely to undergo these therapies despite their benefits. Despite the inclusion of cancer patients in randomized clinical trial data, studies suggest that cancer patients derive similar benefits of percutaneous therapies for CVD compared with patients without cancer. Therefore, percutaneous interventions for CVD should not be withheld in patients with cancer, as they may still benefit from these procedures.

Background

Study design and methods

Results

Interpretation

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common complication among patients with cancer and is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality. Catheter-based therapies (CBT), including catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and mechanical thrombectomy, have been developed and are used in patients with intermediate or high-risk PE. However, there is a paucity of data on outcomes in patients with cancer as most clinical studies exclude this group of patients.

To characterize outcomes of patients with cancer admitted with intermediate or high-risk PE treated with CBT compared with no CBT.

Patients with an admission diagnosis of intermediate or high-risk PE and a history of cancer from October 2015 to December 2018 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample. Outcomes of interest were in-hospital death or cardiac arrest (CA) and major bleeding. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was utilized to compare outcomes between patients treated with and without CBT. Variables that remained unbalanced after IPTW were adjusted using multivariable logistic regression.

A total of 2084 unweighted admissions (10,420 weighted) for intermediate or high-risk PE and cancer were included, of which 136 (6.5%) were treated with CBT. After IPTW, CBT was associated with lower death or CA (aOR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46-0.64) but higher major bleeding (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.21-1.65). After stratifying by PE risk type, patients treated with CBT had lower risk of death or CA in both intermediate (aOR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36-0.75) and high-risk PE (aOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.53). However, patients with CBT were associated with increased risk of major bleeding in intermediate-risk PE (aOR 2.12, 95% CI 1.67-2.69) but not in those with high-risk PE (aOR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66-1.07).

Among patients with cancer hospitalized with intermediate or high-risk PE, treatment with CBT was associated with lower risk of in-hospital death or CA but higher risk of bleeding. Prospective studies and inclusion of patients with cancer in randomized trials are warranted to confirm our findings.