Case series, chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy: mind the family history!

BACKGROUND: Cardiotoxicity presenting as cardiomyopathy is a common side effect in cancer treatment especially with anthracyclines. The role of genetic predisposition is still being investigated. CASE SUMMARY: Four unrelated patients with a familial burden for cardiac disease, who developed cardiomyopathy after anthracycline treatment are presented. Case 1 received chemotherapy for breast cancer and developed a dilated left ventricle just after treatment. Her father had died unexpectedly while being screened for heart transplant. Case 2 was known with a family history of sudden cardiac death prior to her breast cancer diagnosis. She received anthracycline-containing chemotherapy treatment twice in 5 years due to recurrence of breast cancer. During that period, two brothers developed a cardiomyopathy. Eighteen years later, a genetic predisposition for cardiomyopathy was ascertained and at screening an asymptomatic non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy was established. Case 3 was diagnosed with a dilated cardiomyopathy 1 year after chemotherapy treatment for breast cancer. Her mother had developed a dilated cardiomyopathy several years before. Case 4 received chemotherapy treatment for Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and developed dilated cardiomyopathy 1 year later. His brother died from congestive heart failure which he developed after chemotherapy for Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and a grandmother had died suddenly during child delivery. In all four cases, genetic screening showed (likely) pathogenic variants in cardiomyopathy-associated genes. DISCUSSION: Current guidelines recommend cardiac evaluation in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy based on the presence of cardiovascular risk factors at the start of treatment. This series emphasizes the importance of including a thorough family history in this process.

Efficacy and Safety of Outpatient Treatment Based on the Hestia Clinical Decision Rule with or without N-Terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide Testing in Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism. A Randomized Clinical Trial.

RATIONALE: Outpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE) may lead to improved patient satisfaction and reduced healthcare costs. However, trials to assess its safety and the optimal method for patient selection are scarce. OBJECTIVES: To validate the utility and safety of selecting patients with PE for outpatient treatment by the Hestia criteria and to compare the safety of the Hestia criteria alone with the Hestia criteria combined with N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) testing. METHODS: We performed a randomized noninferiority trial in 17 Dutch hospitals. We randomized patients with PE without any of the Hestia criteria to direct discharge or additional NT-proBNP testing. We discharged the latter patients as well if NT-proBNP did not exceed 500 ng/L or admitted them if NT-proBNP was greater than 500 ng/L. The primary endpoint was 30-day adverse outcome defined as PE- or bleeding-related mortality, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or intensive care unit admission. The noninferiority margin for the primary endpoint was 3.4%. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We randomized 550 patients. In the NT-proBNP group, 34 of 275 (12%) had elevated NT-proBNP values and were managed as inpatients. No patient (0 of 34) with an elevated NT-proBNP level treated in hospital (0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0-10.2%), versus no patient (0 of 23) with a post hoc-determined elevated NT-proBNP level from the direct discharge group (0%; 95% CI, 0-14.8%), experienced the primary endpoint. In both trial cohorts, the primary endpoint occurred in none of the 275 patients (0%; 95% CI, 0-1.3%) subjected to NT-proBNP testing, versus in 3 of 275 patients (1.1%; 95% CI, 0.2-3.2%) in the direct discharge group (P = 0.25). During the 3-month follow-up, recurrent venous thromboembolism occurred in two patients (0.73%; 95% CI, 0.1-2.6%) in the NT-proBNP group versus three patients (1.1%; 95% CI, 0.2-3.2%) in the direct discharge group (P = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient treatment of patients with PE selected on the basis of the Hestia criteria alone was associated with a low risk of adverse events. Given the low number of patients with elevated NT-proBNP levels, this trial was unable to draw definite conclusions regarding the incremental value of NT-proBNP testing in patients who fulfill the Hestia criteria. Clinical trial registered with www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2603 (NTR2603).

Hestia criteria can discriminate high- from low-risk patients with pulmonary embolism.

We investigated whether the clinical criteria used in the Hestia study for selection of pulmonary embolism (PE) patients for outpatient treatment could discriminate PE patients with high and low risk for adverse clinical outcome. We performed a cohort study with PE patients who were triaged with 11 criteria for outpatient treatment. Patients not eligible for outpatient treatment were treated in hospital. Study outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding and all-cause mortality during 3 months. In total, 530 patients were included, of which 297 were treated at home. In the outpatient group, six patients (2.0%, 95% CI 0.7-4.3%) had recurrent venous thromboembolism versus nine in-patients (3.9%, 95% CI 1.9-7.0%). Three patients (1.0%, 95% CI 0.2-2.9) died during the 3-months follow-up in the outpatient group versus 22 patients (9.6%, 95% CI 6.3-14) in the in-patient group (p<0.05). None of the outpatients died as a result of fatal PE versus five (2.2%) in-patients (p<0.05). In the outpatient group, 0.7% (95% CI 0.08-2.4) had major bleeding events versus 4.8% (95% CI 2.4-8.4) of in-patients (p<0.05). This study showed that the Hestia criteria can discriminate PE patients with low risk from patients with high risk for adverse clinical outcome. The low-risk patients can safely be treated at home.