Effect of Community and Socio-Economic Factors on Cardiovascular, Cancer and Cardio-Oncology Patients with COVID-19

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a world-wide health crisis on a scale that has not been witnessed in modern times. Socio-economic (SE) factors impact every facet of human existence, including lifestyle, which significantly affects health-related quality of life. This article compiles major studies and discusses health disparities based on SE and community status in cardiovascular and cancer patients with a special focus on cardio-oncology in the context of COVID-19.

Establishing an interdisciplinary research team for cardio-oncology artificial intelligence informatics precision and health equity.

Study objective: A multi-institutional interdisciplinary team was created to develop a research group focused on leveraging artificial intelligence and informatics for cardio-oncology patients. Cardio-oncology is an emerging medical field dedicated to prevention, screening, and management of adverse cardiovascular effects of cancer/ cancer therapies. Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death in cancer survivors. Cardiovascular risk in these patients is higher than in the general population. However, prediction and prevention of adverse cardiovascular events in individuals with a history of cancer/cancer treatment is challenging. Thus, establishing an interdisciplinary team to create cardiovascular risk stratification clinical decision aids for integration into electronic health records for oncology patients was considered crucial. Design/setting/participants: Core team members from the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW), University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM), and Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE), and additional members from Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, and other institutions have joined forces to apply high-performance computing in cardio-oncology. Results: The team is comprised of clinicians and researchers from relevant complementary and synergistic fields relevant to this work. The team has built an epidemiological cohort of ~5000 cancer survivors that will serve as a database for interdisciplinary multi-institutional artificial intelligence projects. Conclusion: Lessons learned from establishing this team, as well as initial findings from the epidemiology cohort, are presented. Barriers have been broken down to form a multi-institutional interdisciplinary team for health informatics research in cardio-oncology. A database of cancer survivors has been created collaboratively by the team and provides initial insight into cardiovascular outcomes and comorbidities in this population.

The Role and Impact of Social Media in Cardio-oncology During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To give an overview of the role of social media (SoMe) in cardio-oncology during the COVID-19 pandemic. RECENT FINDINGS: SoMe has been critical in fostering education, outreach, awareness, collaboration, dissemination of information, and advocacy in cardio-oncology. This has become increasingly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, during which SoMe has helped share best practices, community, and research focused on the impact of COVID-19 in cardiology and hematology/oncology, with cardio-oncology at the interface of these two subspecialty fields. A strength of SoMe is the ability to amplify a message in real-time, globally, with minimal investment of resources. This has been particularly beneficial for the emerging field of cardio-hematology/cardio-oncology, a field focused on the interplay of cancer and cardiovascular disease. SoMe field especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. We illustrate how social media has supported innovation (including telemedicine), amplification of healthcare workers' voice, and illumination of pre-existing and continued health disparities within the field of cardio-oncology during the pandemic.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation with Right Ventricular Assist Device for COVID-19 ARDS.

BACKGROUND: Right ventricular failure is an underrecognized consequence of COVID-19 pneumonia. Those with severe disease are treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) but with poor outcomes. Concomitant right ventricular assist device (RVAD) may be beneficial. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of intensive care unit patients admitted with COVID-19 ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome) was performed. Nonintubated patients, those with acute kidney injury, and age > 75 were excluded. Patients who underwent RVAD/ECMO support were compared with those managed via invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-d mortality, acute kidney injury, length of ICU stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: A total of 145 patients were admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. Thirty-nine patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 received IMV, and 18 received RVAD/ECMO. In-hospital (52.4 versus 11.1%, P = 0.008) and 30-d mortality (42.9 versus 5.6%, P= 0.011) were significantly lower in patients treated with RVAD/ECMO. Acute kidney injury occurred in 15 (71.4%) patients in the IMV group and zero RVAD/ECMO patients (P< 0.001). ICU (11.5 versus 21 d, P= 0.067) and hospital (14 versus 25.5 d, P = 0.054) length of stay were not significantly different. There were no RVAD/ECMO device complications. The duration of mechanical ventilation was not significantly different (10 versus 5 d, P = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: RVAD support at the time of ECMO initiation resulted in the no secondary end-organ damage and higher in-hospital and 30-d survival versus IMV in specially selected patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS. Management of severe COVID-19 ARDS should prioritize right ventricular support.

A virtual-hybrid approach to launching a cardio-oncology clinic during a pandemic.

BACKGROUND: As cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death in cancer survivors, the new subspecialty of Cardio-Oncology has emerged to address prevention, monitoring, and management of cardiovascular toxicities to cancer therapies. During the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we developed a Virtual-Hybrid Approach to build a de novo Cardio-Oncology Clinic. METHODS: We conceptualized a Virtual-Hybrid Approach including three arms: information seeking in locations with existing Cardio-Oncology clinics, information gathering at the location for a new clinic, and information sharing to report clinic-building outcomes. A retrospective review of outcomes included collection and synthesis of data from our first 3 months (at pandemic peak) on types of appointments, cancers, drugs, and cardiotoxicities. Data were presented using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A de-novo Cardio-Oncology clinic was developed structured from the ground up to integrate virtual and in-person care in a hybrid and innovative model, using the three arms of the Virtual-Hybrid Approach. First, we garnered in-person and virtual preparation through hands-on experiences, training, and discussions in existing Cardio-Oncology Clinics and conferences. Next, we gleaned information through virtual inquiry and niche-building. With partners throughout the institution, a virtual referral process was established for outpatient referrals and inpatient e-consult referrals to actualize a hybrid care spectrum for our patients administered by a multidisciplinary hybrid care team of clinicians, ancillary support staff, and clinical pharmacists. Among the multi-subspecialty clinic sessions, approximately 50% were in Cardio-Oncology, 20% in Preventive Cardiology, and 30% in General Cardiology. In the hybrid model, the Heart & Vascular Center had started to re-open, allowing for 65% of our visits to be in person. In additional analyses, the most frequent cardiovascular diagnosis was cardiomyopathy (34%), the most common cancer drug leading to referral was trastuzumab (29%), and the most prevalent cancer type was breast cancer (42%). CONCLUSION: This Virtual-Hybrid Approach and retrospective review provides guidance and information regarding initiating a brand-new Cardio-Oncology Clinic during the pandemic for cancer patients/survivors. This report also furnishes virtual resources for patients, virtual tools for oncologists, cardiologists, and administrators tasked with starting new clinics during the pandemic, and innovative future directions for this digital pandemic to post-pandemic era.

Pandemic Perspective: Commonalities Between COVID-19 and Cardio-Oncology.

Overlapping commonalities between coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) and cardio-oncology regarding cardiovascular toxicities (CVT), pathophysiology, and pharmacology are special topics emerging during the pandemic. In this perspective, we consider an array of CVT common to both COVID-19 and cardio-oncology, including cardiomyopathy, ischemia, conduction abnormalities, myopericarditis, and right ventricular (RV) failure. We also emphasize the higher risk of severe COVID-19 illness in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or its risk factors or cancer. We explore commonalities in the underlying pathophysiology observed in COVID-19 and cardio-oncology, including inflammation, cytokine release, the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system, coagulopathy, microthrombosis, and endothelial dysfunction. In addition, we examine common pharmacologic management strategies that have been elucidated for CVT from COVID-19 and various cancer therapies. The use of corticosteroids, as well as antibodies and inhibitors of various molecules mediating inflammation and cytokine release syndrome, are discussed. The impact of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) is also addressed, since these drugs are used in cardio-oncology and have received considerable attention during the COVID-19 pandemic, since the culprit virus enters human cells via the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor. There are therefore several areas of overlap, similarity, and interaction in the toxicity, pathophysiology, and pharmacology profiles in COVID-19 and cardio-oncology syndromes. Learning more about either will likely provide some level of insight into both. We discuss each of these topics in this viewpoint, as well as what we foresee as evolving future directions to consider in cardio-oncology during the pandemic and beyond. Finally, we highlight commonalities in health disparities in COVID-19 and cardio-oncology and encourage continued development and implementation of innovative solutions to improve equity in health and healing.

Perspectives on the COVID-19 pandemic impact on cardio-oncology: results from the COVID-19 International Collaborative Network survey.

BACKGROUND: Re-allocation of resources during the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in delays in care delivery to patients with cardiovascular disease and cancer. The ability of health care providers to provide optimal care in this setting has not been formally evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of COVID-19 resource re-allocation on scheduling, testing, elective procedures, telemedicine access, use of new COVID-19 therapies, and providers' opinions on healthcare policies among oncology and cardiology practitioners. METHODS: An electronic survey was conducted by a cardio-oncology collaborative network through regional and state chapters of the American College of Cardiology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the International Cardio-Oncology Society. Descriptive statistics were reported by frequency and proportion for analyses, and stratified categorically by geographic region and specialty. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred fifteen providers (43 countries) participated: 986 cardiologists, 306 oncologists, and 118 trainees/internal medicine. 63% (195/306) of oncologists vs 92% (896/976) of cardiologists reported cancellations of treatments/elective procedures (p = 0.01). 46% (442/970) of cardiologists and 25% (76/303) of oncologists modified the scope of their practice (p = < 0.001). Academic physicians (74.5%) felt better supplied with personal protective equipment (PPE) vs non-academic (74.5% vs 67.2%; p = 0.018). Telemedicine was less common in Europe 81% (74/91), and Latin America 64% (101/158), than the United States, 88% (950/1097) (p = < 0.001). 95% of all groups supported more active leadership from medical professional societies. CONCLUSIONS: These results support initiatives to promote expanded coverage for telemedicine, increased access to PPE, better testing availability and involvement of medical professional societies to help with preparedness for future health care crisis.