Search

Heart failure and cancer remain 2 of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality, and the 2 disease entities are linked in a complex manner. Patients with cancer are at increased risk of cardiovascular complications related to the cancer therapies. The presence of cardiomyopathy or heart failure in a patient with new cancer diagnosis portends a high risk for adverse oncology and cardiovascular outcomes. With the rapid growth of cancer therapies, many of which interfere with cardiovascular homeostasis, heart failure practitioners need to be familiar with prevention, risk stratification, diagnosis, and management strategies in cardio-oncology. This Heart Failure Society of America statement addresses the complexities of heart failure care among patients with active cancer diagnoses and cancer survivors. Risk stratification, monitoring and management of cardiotoxicity are presented across stages A through D heart failure, with focused discussion on heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and special populations, such as survivors of childhood and young-adulthood cancers. We provide an overview of the shared risk factors between cancer and heart failure, highlighting heart failure as a form of cardiotoxicity associated with many different cancer therapeutics. Finally, we discuss disparities in the care of patients with cancer and cardiac disease and present a framework for a multidisciplinary-team approach and critical collaboration among heart failure, oncology, palliative care, pharmacy, and nursing teams in the management of these complex patients. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article relates the author's view on the impact of the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to the professionals and to the patients involved. She shares about her struggling as a patient with multiple diagnoses and stresses that she understand that PROs is an effort about drug labeling. She believes that symptoms cannot be separated from health-related quality of life (HRQL) and quality of life (QOL). She asks these professionals to keep in mind the entire person perspective.

The role of percutaneous coronary interventions in addition to medical therapy for patients with stable coronary artery disease continues to be debated in routine clinical practice, despite more than 2 decades of randomized controlled trials. The residual uncertainty arises from particular challenges facing revascularization trials. Which endpoint do doctors care about, and which do patients care about? Which participants should be enrolled? What background medical therapy should we use? When is placebo control relevant? In this paper, we discuss how these questions can be approached and examine the merits and disadvantages of possible options. Engaging multiple stakeholders, including patients, researchers, regulators, and funders, to ensure the design elements are methodologically valid and clinically meaningful should be an aspirational goal in the development of future trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]