Cancer and cardiovascular (CV) disease are the most prevalent diseases in the developed world. Evidence increasingly shows that these conditions are interlinked through common risk factors, coincident in an ageing population, and are connected biologically through some deleterious effects of anticancer treatment on CV health. Anticancer therapies can cause a wide spectrum of short-and long-term cardiotoxic effects. An explosion of novel cancer therapies has revolutionised this field and dramatically altered cancer prognosis. Nevertheless, these new therapies have introduced unexpected CV complications beyond heart failure. Common CV toxicities related to cancer therapy are defined, along with suggested strategies for prevention, detection and treatment. This ESMO consensus article proposes to define CV toxicities related to cancer or its therapies and provide guidance regarding prevention, screening, monitoring and treatment of CV toxicity. The majority of anticancer therapies are associated with some CV toxicity, ranging from asymptomatic and transient to more clinically significant and long-lasting cardiac events. It is critical however, that concerns about potential CV damage resulting from anticancer therapies should be weighed against the potential benefits of cancer therapy, including benefits in overall survival. CV disease in patients with cancer is complex and treatment needs to be individualised. The scope of cardio-oncology is wide and includes prevention, detection, monitoring and treatment of CV toxicity related to cancer therapy, and also ensuring the safe development of future novel cancer treatments that minimise the impact on CV health. It is anticipated that the management strategies discussed herein will be suitable for the majority of patients. Nonetheless, the clinical judgment of physicians remains extremely important; hence, when using these best clinical practices to inform treatment options and decisions, practitioners should also consider the individual circumstances of their patients on a case-by-case basis.

Objectives Aim of our study was to describe the incidence and predictive factors of secondary infections in patients with COVID-19. Methods Cohort study on patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital between February 25 th and April 6th, 2020 (NCT04318366). We considered secondary bloodstream (BSIs) or possible lower respiratory tract infections (pLRTIs) occurred after 48 hours since hospital admission until death or discharge. We calculated multivariable Fine-Gray models, to assess factors associated with risk of secondary infections. Results Among 731 patients, a secondary infection was diagnosed in 68 patients (9.3%): 58/731 patients (7.9%) had at least one BSI and 22/731 patients (3.0%) at least one pLRTI. Overall 28-day cumulative incidence was 16.4% (95% CI 12.4% - 21.0%). The majority of BSIs was due to gram-positive pathogens (76/106 isolates, 71.7%), specifically coagulase-negative staphylococci (53/76, 69.7%), while among gram-negatives (23/106, 21.7%) Acinetobacter baumanii (7/23, 30.4%) and Escherichia coli (5/23, 21.7%) predominated. pLRTIs were mainly caused by gram-negative pathogens (14/26, 53.8%). Eleven patients were diagnosed with putative invasive aspergillosis. At multivariable analysis, factors associated with secondary infections were low baseline lymphocyte count ( < 0.7 vs >0.7 per 10 9 /L: subdistribution hazard ratios (sdHRs) 1.93 [95% CI 1.11-3.35]), baseline PaO 2 /FiO 2 (per 100-points lower: sdHRs 1.56 [95% CI 1.21-2.04]), and intensive-care unit (ICU) admission in the first 48 hours (sdHR 2.51 [95% CI 1.04-6.05]). Conclusions Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 had a high incidence of secondary infections. At multivariable analysis, early need for ICU, respiratory failure, and severe lymphopenia, were identified as risk factors for secondary infections.

In patients who required perioperative hemodynamic support after cardiac surgery, low-dose levosimendan in addition to standard care did not result in lower 30-day mortality than placebo. (Funded by the Italian Ministry of Health; CHEETAH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00994825 .).

No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUNDVolatile (inhaled) anesthetic agents have cardioprotective effects, which might improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODSWe conducted a pragmatic, multicenter, single-blind, controlled trial at 36 centers in 13 countries. Patients scheduled to undergo elective CABG were randomly assigned to an intraoperative anesthetic regimen that included a volatile anesthetic (desflurane, isoflurane, or sevoflurane) or to total intravenous anesthesia. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 1 year. RESULTSA total of 5400 patients were randomly assigned: 2709 to the volatile anesthetics group and 2691 to the total intravenous anesthesia group. On-pump CABG was performed in 64% of patients, with a mean duration of cardiopulmonary bypass of 79 minutes. The two groups were similar with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline, the duration of cardiopulmonary bypass, and the number of grafts. At the time of the second interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board advised that the trial should be stopped for futility. No significant difference between the groups with respect to deaths from any cause was seen at 1 year (2.8% in the volatile anesthetics group and 3.0% in the total intravenous anesthesia group; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.29; P = 0.71), with data available for 5353 patients (99.1%), or at 30 days (1.4% and 1.3%, respectively; relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.76), with data available for 5398 patients (99.9%). There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes or in the incidence of prespecified adverse events, including myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONSAmong patients undergoing elective CABG, anesthesia with a volatile agent did not result in significantly fewer deaths at 1 year than total intravenous anesthesia.

Background There is no information on acute kidney injury (AKI) and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) among invasively ventilated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in Western healthcare systems. Objective To study the prevalence, characteristics, risk factors and outcome of AKI and CRRT among invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients. Methods Observational study in a tertiary care hospital in Milan, Italy. Results Among 99 patients, 72 (75.0%) developed AKI and 17 (17.7%) received CRRT. Most of the patients developed stage 1 AKI (33 [45.8%]), while 15 (20.8%) developed stage 2 AKI and 24 (33.4%) a stage 3 AKI. Patients who developed AKI or needed CRRT at latest follow-up were older, and among CRRT treated patients a greater proportion had preexisting CKD. Hospital mortality was 38.9% for AKI and 52.9% for CRRT patients. Conclusions Among invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients, AKI is very common and CRRT use is common. Both carry a high risk of in-hospital mortality.

No abstract