CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

左主干支架

Abstract

Recommended Article

Bayesian Interpretation of the EXCEL Trial and Other Randomized Clinical Trials of Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization 10-Year Outcomes of Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease A randomized clinical study comparing double kissing crush with provisional stenting for treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions: results from the DKCRUSH-II (Double Kissing Crush versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions) trial Left Main Revascularization in 2017: Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention? Percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary artery disease: the 13th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club Revascularization of left main coronary artery Safety of intermediate left main stenosis revascularization deferral based on fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-regression including 908 deferred left main stenosis from 12 studies

Original ResearchVolume 71, Issue 14, April 2018

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Lack of Association Between Heart Failure and Incident Cancer

S Selvaraj, DL Bhatt, B Claggett et al. Keywords: heart failure; incident; cancer; malignancy; tumor

Abstract


BACKGROUND - Several recent studies have suggested an increased cancer risk among patients with heart failure (HF). However, these studies are constrained by limited size and follow-up, lack of comprehensive data on other health attributes, and adjudicated cancer outcomes.

OBJECTIVE - This study sought to determine whether HF is associated with cancer incidence and cancer-specific mortality.

METHODS - The study assembled a cohort from the Physicians’ Health Studies I and II, 2 randomized controlled trials of aspirin and vitamin supplements conducted from 1982 to 1995 and from 1997 to 2011, respectively, that included annual health evaluations and determination of cancer and HF diagnoses. In the primary analysis, the study excluded participants with cancer or HF at baseline and performed multivariable-adjusted Cox models to determine the relationship between HF and cancer, modeling HF as a time-varying exposure. In a complementary analysis, the study used the landmark method and identified cancer-free participants at 70 years of age, distinguishing between those with and without HF, and likewise performed Cox regression. Sensitivity analyses were performed at 65, 75, and 80 years of age.

RESULTS - Among 28,341 Physicians’ Health Study participants, 1,420 developed HF. A total of 7,363 cancers developed during a median follow-up time of 19.9 years (25th to 75th percentile: 11.0 to 26.8 years). HF was not associated with cancer incidence in crude (hazard ratio: 0.92; 95% confidence interval: 0.80 to 1.08) or multivariable-adjusted analysis (hazard ratio: 1.05; 95% confidence interval: 0.86 to 1.29). No association was found between HF and site-specific cancer incidence or cancer-specific mortality after multivariable adjustment. Results were similar when using the landmark method at all landmark ages.

CONCLUSIONS - HF is not associated with an increased risk of cancer among male physicians.