Palliative cancer treatment is a system of care that seeks to relieve suffering in patients with progressive cancer. Given the intractable symptoms with which certain malignancies manifest, palliative care offers a practical approach towards improving the patient’s quality of life. However, there are an array of ethical issues associated with this treatment strategy such as particular methods of pain relief, a reliable assessment of suffering, autonomy, and multi-specialist care. While these principles are important to increase and improve the network of palliative care, the resource-poor Indian environments present numerous barriers for these principles to be practically applied. As the infrastructure of comprehensive cancer centers develop, paralleled with an increase in training of palliative care professionals, significant improvements need to be made in order to elevate the status of palliative cancer care in India.

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy is a lifesaving option for patients with medical therapy-refractory advanced heart failure. Depending on the definition, 5–44% of people supported with an LVAD develop right heart failure (RHF), which is associated with worse outcomes. The mechanisms related to RHF include patient, surgical, and hemodynamic factors. Despite significant progress in understanding the roles of these factors and improvements in surgical techniques and LVAD technology, this complication is still a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality among LVAD patients. Additionally, specific medical therapies for this complication still are lacking, leaving cardiac transplantation or supportive management as the only options for LVAD patients who develop RHF. While significant effort has been made to create algorithms aimed at stratifying risk for RHF in patients undergoing LVAD implantation, the predictive value of these algorithms has been limited, especially when attempts at external validation have been undertaken. Perhaps one of the reasons for poor performance in external validation is related to differing definitions of RHF in external cohorts. Additionally, most research in this field has focused on RHF occurring in the early phase (i.e., ≤1 month) post LVAD implantation. However, there is emerging recognition of late-onset RHF (i.e., > 1 month post-surgery) as a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Late-onset RHF, which likely has a unique physiology and pathogenic mechanisms, remains poorly characterized. In this review of the literature, we will describe the unique right ventricular physiology and changes elicited by LVADs that might cause both early- and late-onset RHF. Finally, we will analyze the currently available treatments for RHF, including mechanical circulatory support options and medical therapies.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Cancer and cardiovascular disease share many risk factors. Due to improved survival of patients with cancer, the cohort of cancer survivors with heart failure referred for heart transplantation (HT) is growing. Specific considerations include time interval between cancer treatment and HT, risk for recurrence and risk for de novo malignancy (dnM). dnM is an important cause of post-HT morbidity and mortality, with nearly a third diagnosed with malignancy by 10 years post-HT. Compared with the age-matched general population, HT recipients have an approximately 2.5-fold to 4-fold increased risk of developing cancer. HT recipients with prior malignancy show variable cancer recurrence rates, depending on years in remission before HT: 5% recurrence if >5 years in remission, 26% recurrence if 1–5 years in remission and 63% recurrence if <1 year in remission. A myriad of mechanisms influence oncogenesis following HT, including reduced host immunosurveillance from chronic immunosuppression, influence of oncogenic viruses, and the cumulative intensity and duration of immunosuppression. Conversely, protective factors include acyclovir prophylaxis, use of proliferation signal inhibitors (PSI) and female gender. Management involves reducing immunosuppression, incorporating a PSI for immunosuppression and heightened surveillance for allograft rejection. Cancer treatment, including immunotherapy, may be cardiotoxic and lead to graft failure or rejection. Additionally, there exists a competing risk to reduce immunosuppression to improve cancer outcomes, which may increase risk for rejection. A multidisciplinary cardio-oncology team approach is recommended to optimise care and should include an oncologist, transplant cardiologist, transplant pharmacist, palliative care, transplant coordinator and cardio-oncologist.

No abstract

No abstract