Implantable devices for heart failure monitoring.

Heart failure (HF) is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. The increasing prevalence of HF and inpatient HF hospitalization has a considerable burden on healthcare cost and utilization. The recognition that hemodynamic changes in pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) and left atrial pressure precede the signs and symptoms of HF has led to interest in hemodynamic guided HF therapy as an approach to allow earlier intervention during a heart failure decompensation. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) utilizing telecommunication, cardiac implantable electronic device parameters and implantable hemodynamic monitors (IHM) have largely failed to demonstrate favorable outcomes in multicenter trials. However, one positive randomized clinical trial testing the CardioMEMS device (followed by Food and Drug Administration approval) has generated renewed interest in PAP monitoring in the HF population to decrease hospitalization and improve quality of life. The COVID-19 pandemic has also stirred a resurgence in the utilization of telehealth to which RPM using IHM may be complementary. The cost effectiveness of these monitors continues to be a matter of debate. Future iterations of devices aim to be smaller, less burdensome for the patient, less dependent on patient compliance, and less cumbersome for health care providers with the integration of artificial intelligence coupled with sophisticated data management and interpretation tools. Currently, use of IHM may be considered in advanced heart failure patients with the support of structured programs.

Angiotensin II Administration in Patients With COVID-19 Shock.

PURPOSE: To understand the hemodynamic effect of angiotensin II as a vasopressor in patients with shock secondary to COVID-19 infection. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on all patients at a single center with COVID-19 infection and shock who were treated with angiotensin II. The hemodynamic response to angiotensin II was estimated by recording the mean arterial pressure, norepinephrine equivalent dose (NED) and urine output. RESULTS: Ten patients with COVID-19 related shock were treated with angiotensin II. Over the initial 6 hours, the average the NED decreased by 30.4% (from 64.6 to 44 µg/min) without a significant change in the mean arterial pressure (0.7% decrease). Six patients experienced at least a 25% reduction in NED by 6 hours, and 2 experienced at least a 50% reduction. CONCLUSIONS: On average, the hemodynamic response to angiotensin II in COVID-19 related shock was favorable. Two patients had a marked rapid improvement. Given the relationship of SARS-CoV-2 with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, further evaluation of angiotensin II for the treatment of COVID-19 related shock is warranted.

Cardiotoxicity of Contemporary Anticancer Immunotherapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Contemporary anticancer immunotherapy, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, has changed the landscape of treatment for patients with a variety of malignancies who historically had a poor prognosis. However, both immune checkpoint inhibitors and CAR T cell therapy are associated with serious cardiovascular adverse effects. As immunotherapy evolves to include high-risk patients with preexisting cardiovascular risk factors and disease, the risk and relevance of its associated cardiotoxicity will be even higher. RECENT FINDINGS: ICI can cause myocarditis, which usually occurs early after initiation, can be fulminant, and prompt treatment with high-dose corticosteroids is crucial. CAR T cell therapy frequently leads to cytokine release syndrome, which is associated with cardiomyopathy or arrhythmia development and may also result in circulatory collapse. Supportive treatment, as well as tocilizumab, an anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibody, is the cornerstone of treatment. Recent findings suggest that preexisting cardiovascular risk factors and disease may increase the risk of such cardiotoxicity, and prompt recognition, as well as treatment, may favorably alter the outcomes. SUMMARY: ICI and CAR T cell therapy have improved cancer-related outcomes; however, they both are associated with potentially therapy-limiting cardiotoxicity. Cardio-oncologists are required to play an important role in patient selection, pretherapy cardiovascular optimization, and prompt recognition and treatment of cardiotoxicity.

Outcomes of COVID-19 in Patients With a History of Cancer and Comorbid Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD) are independently associated with adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with both cancer and comorbid CVD are unknown. METHODS: This retrospective study included 2,476 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at 4 Massachusetts hospitals between March 11 and May 21, 2020. Patients were stratified by a history of either cancer (n=195) or CVD (n=414) and subsequently by the presence of both cancer and CVD (n=82). We compared outcomes between patients with and without cancer and patients with both cancer and CVD compared with patients with either condition alone. The primary endpoint was COVID-19-associated severe disease, defined as a composite of the need for mechanical ventilation, shock, or death. Secondary endpoints included death, shock, need for mechanical ventilation, need for supplemental oxygen, arrhythmia, venous thromboembolism, encephalopathy, abnormal troponin level, and length of stay. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis identified cancer as an independent predictor of COVID-19-associated severe disease among all infected patients. Patients with cancer were more likely to develop COVID-19-associated severe disease than were those without cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 2.02; 95% CI, 1.53-2.68; P<.001). Furthermore, patients with both cancer and CVD had a higher likelihood of COVID-19-associated severe disease compared with those with either cancer (HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.11-3.10; P=.02) or CVD (HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.21-2.66; P=.004) alone. Patients died more frequently if they had both cancer and CVD compared with either cancer (35% vs 17%; P=.004) or CVD (35% vs 21%; P=.009) alone. Arrhythmias and encephalopathy were also more frequent in patients with both cancer and CVD compared with those with cancer alone. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a history of both cancer and CVD are at significantly higher risk of experiencing COVID-19-associated adverse outcomes. Aggressive public health measures are needed to mitigate the risks of COVID-19 infection in this vulnerable patient population.