Acute myocardial infarction in a high-risk cancer population: Outcomes following conservative versus invasive management.

BACKGROUND

The benefits of invasive versus noninvasive management in oncology patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are unclear. We aimed to retrospectively determine outcome differences between conservative and invasive management of AMI in cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients from our institution between March 2016 and December 2018 with type 1 and type 2 AMI (excluding STEMI) were classified into 2 groups: medical therapy only and invasive strategies. Analyzed outcomes were overall survival (OS), procedural complications, subsequent events, and hospice referral. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to compare OS between subgroups. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were conducted to find factors associated with OS.

RESULTS

We included 201 patients. Type 1 MI was seen in 152 patients (76%) and type 2 MI in 49 (24%). Median OS was 13 months. Most presented with symptoms other than dyspnea or chest pain (49%) and with ECG revealing changes other than ST-segment depression and T-wave inversion (62%). Patients with type 2 MI had worse OS than patients with type 1 MI (HR = 2.3, p = 0.0002). Early coronary angiography (≤72 h; HR = 0.327, p < 0.0001), late coronary angiography (>72 h; HR = 0.496, p = 0.0426), and percutaneous coronary intervention (HR = 0.481, p = 0.0116) were associated with better OS than noninvasive approaches. Single and dual agent antiplatelet therapy, beta blockers, and statins were each associated with better OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients without STEMI who underwent invasive treatment for AMI had better OS compared with those treated only medically, with the highest benefit when coronary angiography was performed within 72 h of admission for AMI.