BACKGROUND Pericardial effusion (PE) is common in cancer patients but the optimal therapeutic approach is not well defined. Percutaneous pericardiocentesis is less invasive than surgery, but its long-term effectiveness and safety are not well documented. OBJECTIVES We evaluated outcomes of cancer patients undergoing percutaneous pericardiocentesis for PE and assessed the procedure’s safety in patients with thrombocytopenia. METHODS Cancer patients who underwent percutaneous pericardiocentesis for PE between November 2009 and October 2014 at MD Anderson Cancer Center were included. Procedure-related complications, effusion recurrence rate, and overall survival were analyzed. RESULTS Of 1,645 cancer patients referred for PE, 212 (13%) underwent percutaneous pericardiocentesis. The procedure was successful in 99% of the cases with no procedure-related deaths. Four patients had major procedure-related bleeding that did not vary by platelet count <50,000/µl or ≥50,000/µl (p = 0.1281). Patients with catheter drainage for 3 to 5 days had the lowest recurrence rate (10%). Median overall survival was 143 days with age >65 years, lung cancer, platelet count <20,000/µl, and malignant pericardial fluid independently associated with poor prognosis. Lung cancer patients with proven malignant effusions had a significantly shorter median 1-year survival compared to those with nonmalignant effusions (16.2% vs. 49.0%, respectively; log-rank test p value = 0.0101). A similar difference in 1-year survival was not observed in breast cancer patients (40.2% vs. 40.0%, respectively; log-rank test p = 0.4170). CONCLUSION Percutaneous pericardiocentesis with extended catheter drainage, as primary treatment for PE in cancer patients, is safe and effective, including in those with thrombocytopenia. Malignant PE significantly shortens the survival outcome of lung, but not breast, cancer patients.

Purpose Findings from RTOG 0617 suggested that collateral radiation to the heart may contribute to early death in patients receiving chemoradiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, reports of cardiac toxicity after thoracic radiation therapy (RT) remain limited. Because pericardial disease is the most common cardiac complication of thoracic RT, we investigated the incidence of and risk factors for pericardial effusion (PCE) in patients enrolled in a phase II, prospective randomized study of intensity modulated RT (IMRT) versus proton therapy for locally advanced NSCLC. Methods and Materials From July 2009 through April 2014, 201 patients were prospectively treated with proton beam therapy or IMRT to 60-74 Gy with concurrent chemotherapy. The primary endpoint (grade ≥2 PCE) was diagnosed upon review of follow-up images. Clinical characteristics and cardiac dose-volume parameters associated with PCE were identified via Cox proportional hazards modeling and recursive partitioning analysis of null Martingale residuals. Reproducibility was evaluated in a separate retrospective cohort of 301 patients. Results Cumulative incidence rates of PCE among patients in the trial were 31.4% at 1 year and 45.4% at 2 years, with median time to PCE of 8.9 months. Several cardiac dose-volume parameters (e.g., V20–V65) predicted PCE, but heart V35 (HV35) was the most strongly associated, with cut-off volume of 10%. On multivariable analysis, HV35 >10% independently predicted PCE (hazard ratio [HR] 2.14, p=0.002), a finding that maintained reproducibility in the retrospective validation cohort. Other factors associated with PCE included receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 2.82, p<0.001) and prior cardiac disease (HR 1.68, p=0.020). Conclusions PCE was common after RT for NSCLC, occurring in nearly half of patients even after moderate radiation doses to the heart. Adjuvant chemotherapy may increase the risk of PCE, and HV35 >10% may identify patients at risk for development of this cardiac toxicity.

Thromboembolic complications are the second leading cause of death in cancer patients. In contrast to the large body of literature on venous thromboembolism (VTE), relatively few reports have focused on the pathogenesis, incidence, management and outcomes of arterial thromboembolic events in patients with malignancy. The purpose of this article is to review the current literature on the etiology, mechanisms, and prognosis of arterial thromboembolic events in cancer patients and outline appropriate screening and management guidelines that may help lower the rates of morbidity and mortality related to these events.

We describe a patient with asymptomatic apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (AHCM) who later developed cardiac arrhythmias, and briefly discuss the diagnostic modalities, differential diagnosis and treatment option for this condition. AHCM is a rare form of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy which classically involves the apex of the left ventricle. AHCM can be an incidental finding, or patients may present with chest pain, palpitations, dyspnea, syncope, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, embolic events, ventricular fibrillation and congestive heart failure. AHCM is frequently sporadic, but autosomal dominant inheritance has been reported in few families. The most frequent and classic electrocardiogram findings are giant negative T-waves in the precordial leads which are found in the majority of the patients followed by left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. A transthoracic echocardiogram is the initial diagnostic tool in the evaluation of ACHM and shows hypertrophy of the LV apex. AHCM may mimic other conditions such as LV apical cardiac tumors, LV apical thrombus, isolated ventricular non-compaction, endomyocardial fibrosis and coronary artery disease. Other modalities, including left ventriculography, multislice spiral computed tomography, and cardiac magnetic resonance imagings are also valuable tools and are frequently used to differentiate AHCH from other conditions. Medications used to treat symptomatic patients with AHCM include verapamil, beta-blockers and antiarrhythmic agents such as amiodarone and procainamide. An implantable cardioverter defibrillator is recommended for high risk patients.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

For long-term central lines (CL), the lumen is the major source of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI). The current standard of care for maintaining catheter patency includes flushing the CL with saline or heparin. Neither agent has any antimicrobial activity. Furthermore, heparin may enhance staphylococcal biofilm formation. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of a novel nonantibiotic catheter lock solution for the prevention of CLABSI. Between November 2015 and February 2016, we enrolled 60 patients with hematologic malignancies who had peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) to receive the study lock solution. The study lock consisted of 15 or 30 g/ml of nitroglycerin in combination with 4% sodium citrate and 22% ethanol. Each lumen was locked for at least 2 h once daily prior to being flushed. After enrollment of 10 patients at the lower nitroglycerin dose without evidence of toxicity, the dose was escalated to the higher dose (30 g/ml). There were no serious related adverse events or episodes of hypotension with lock administration. Two patients experienced mild transient adverse events (one headache and one rash) possibly related to the lock and that resolved without residual effect. The CLABSI rate was 0 on lock days versus 1.6/1,000 catheter days (CD) off lock prophylaxis, compared with a rate of 1.9/1,000 CD at the institution in the same patient population. In conclusion, the nitroglycerin-based lock prophylaxis is safe and well tolerated. It may prevent CLABSI when given daily to cancer patients. Large, prospective, randomized clinical trials are needed to validate these findings. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02577718.) KEYWORDS nitroglycerin, catheter, lock solution, central venous catheter, infections, cancer patients C entral venous catheters (CVC) are imperative for the treatment and management of cancer patients, particularly those with hematological malignancies who require a long-term access for the administration of chemotherapy, antibiotics, blood products, and fluids as well as for frequent blood draws. However, these lifelines are the leading source of bloodstream infections, causing at least 400,000 episodes of bloodstream infections yearly in cancer patients (1) and contributing to up to 62% of the bloodstream infections in patients with long-term CVC (2, 3). These catheter-associated infections constitute a major public health challenge, with an estimated mortality rate of 10 to 25% (4) and estimated cost of $45,000 per episode (5).