Abstract
Background:
Improved cancer survival in patients treated with thoracic ionizing radiation (XRT) has resulted in unanticipated surge of aortic stenosis. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the management of severe aortic stenosis. However, long-term clinical outcomes in radiation-exposed cohorts undergoing TAVR are unknown. We compared the all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients with prior chest XRT (C-XRT) undergoing TAVR.
Methods:
This is an observational cohort study in subjects who underwent TAVR for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis from 2012 to 2017 in a tertiary care referral center. We examined the all-cause mortality and MACE using cox proportional hazard analysis to identify the clinical predictors of survival in the cohort of patients who had a history of prior C-XRT for malignancy.
Results:
Of the 610 patients who underwent TAVR for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, 75 had prior C-XRT. The majority of C-XRT patients had prior breast cancer (44%) followed by Hodgkin’s lymphoma (31%), with the median time from XRT to TAVR of 19.0 years. During a mean follow up of 17.1 months after TAVR, all-cause mortality was 17%. Those with prior C-XRT had higher all-cause mortality (XRT: 29%; non-XRT:15%, p<0.01) and MACE (XRT: 57%; non-XRT: 27%, p<0.001) after TAVR. Patients with prior XRT had a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation (XRT: 48 %; non-XRT: 2.4%, p<0.01) and high-grade heart block (XRT: 20%; non-XRT: 9.1%, p=0.007) requiring pacemaker implant after TAVR. On multivariate cox proportional hazard analysis, prior XRT (HR: 2.07, p=0.003), poor renal function (HR: 1.29, p<0.001) and post-operative anemia requiring transfusion (HR: 1.16, p:0.001) were the strongest predictors of reduced survival.
Conclusions:
Cancer survivors with prior C- XRT have higher incidence of all-cause mortality and MACE after TAVR. Careful patient selection and follow-up strategies are needed to improve outcomes.
Keywords: TAVR, Cancer Survival, Radiation, Aortic Stenosis
Introduction
Radiation therapy is an important therapeutic modality in multiple thoracic and non-thoracic cancers 1,2. Chest radiation has been part of standard treatment protocol in various malignancies including lymphoma, breast, lung, and esophagus with improvement in cancer survival 3,4,5. However, with increased longevity, cancer survivors face a higher rate of cardiovascular disease as a consequence of chest radiotherapy (C-XRT) 4,6–8. According to American Society of Clinical Oncology, cardiovascular complications tend to develop in 10–30% of patients receiving radiation therapy usually after a mean follow up of 5 to 10 years 9.
Radiation-Induced Valvular Heart Disease (RIVHD) is one of the most common late cardiac complications of C-XRT that develops in about 10% of patients undergoing C-XRT. The incidence of RIVHD increases in the second decade after radiation exposure 2,10. Valvular lesions are more common on the left side of the heart than the right, most commonly involving the mitral and aortic valves 11. C-XRT leads to late scarring, fibrotic thickening, retraction and calcification of the basal and medial portions of the leaflets with sparing of the leaflet tips and commissures allowing distinction from rheumatic valve disease 2,12,13. Fossa and colleagues previously reported that 39% of Hodgkin’s lymphoma survivors who underwent C-XRT developed at least moderate to severe aortic stenosis in 12 years of follow up 12. Another retrospective analysis of C-XRT patients’ with Hodgkin’s lymphoma showed valvular disease in 6.2% of patients after an average 22 years of observation, with aortic stenosis (AS) manifesting in more than a half of these patients 14.
In patients with radiation-associated AS (RA-AS), Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) has been suggested as a safer modality compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) as mediastinal fibrosis and aortic calcifications that develop after radiotherapy makes a surgical approach more challenging 2. Desai and colleagues recently reported poor clinical outcomes in patients with prior C-XRT who underwent SAVR 8. Data regarding outcomes after TAVR in patients with C-XRT are lacking, despite increasing number of patients currently being treated with transcatheter approach 15. Therefore, we examined the long-term survival and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with prior C-XRT undergoing TAVR utilizing the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry (STS/ACC TVT Registry).
Methods
This is an observational cohort study in patients who underwent TAVR for symptomatic severe AS at our tertiary care referral center. All clinical procedures and protocols conformed to institutional guidelines and were approved by the Institutional review board (IRB).
Study Population and Design:
We studied 610 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR for symptomatic severe AS at our institute from January 2012 to September 2017. The study subjects were divided into 2 groups. The first group (XRT; N=75) had prior history of C-XRT for thoracic malignancy. The second group (non-XRT; N=535) had no history of C-XRT. The determination of prior C-XRT in cancer survivors was made based on chart review, or through a personal interview during their pre-TAVR evaluation visit.
Clinical Characteristics and Quality of Life:
Baseline patient characteristics including demographics, clinical symptomatology, surgical history, radiation history, laboratory, medications use, echocardiographic and pulmonary function test were obtained at the pre-TAVR evaluation visit. Procedural and peri-procedural complications and outcomes were obtained from the procedure notes and inpatient chart review. Baseline functional status was assessed using Kansas City Quality of Life Questionnaire (KCCQ-12) at their pre-procedure clinic visit. Surgical risk was assessed using Society of Thoracic Surgery (STS) risk score.
Pre-TAVR Echocardiography:
All patients underwent a comprehensive echocardiogram as part of the standard clinical diagnostic evaluation during their pre-procedure assessment for TAVR. Cardiac chamber measurements, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), aortic valve area and LV stroke volume index (LV-SVI) were obtained according to current American Society of Echocardiography recommended methods 16,17.
Follow-Up of Clinical Outcomes:
The date of TAVR was considered as the beginning of the follow-up. Procedural and immediate postoperative data, length of intensive care unit or hospital stay and postoperative complications were retrieved from electronic medical records. All patients were routinely followed up after TAVR at 30 days and up to one year at our structural heart clinic. Beyond one year, data on all-cause mortality and MACE outcomes were obtained by reviewing shared electronic medical records with their primary care or health systems and by telephone follow-up.
The primary event was all cause mortality. Data on survival were obtained from medical record review, US Social Security Death Index or telephone follow-up. Cardiovascular mortality was defined as any death attributed to sudden cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, heart failure, or other cardiovascular causes. Major bleeding was defined as per the definitions of the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis bleeding scale 18,19.
Secondary events were composite end-point of MACE, defined as cardiovascular mortality, stroke, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or revascularization and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations until the date of last follow up. The incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrioventricular (AV) conduction abnormalities requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implant were obtained through individual review of medical records, including from device clinic or through follow-up with their primary care provider. Quality of Life Questionnaire (KCCQ-12) for each patient was assessed at 30 days and at 1-year follow-up after TAVR.
Statistical Analysis:
Categorical and continuous variables were expressed as percentage or frequency and mean ± standard deviation (SD) respectively where appropriate. Baseline clinical and procedural characteristics were compared between the groups using the student’s t test or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, as appropriate, for quantitative variables; and the Pearson chi-square test for categorical variables. All the available relevant clinical, echocardiographic, laboratory and pre/post-operative variables were used in univariate cox proportional hazard analysis to determine the association with all-cause mortality. The variables that were significant (p<0.05) on univariate analysis were used to construct the multivariate cox proportional hazard model. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for all-cause mortality, composite and each component of MACE free survival were performed. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant for all statistical analyses. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS statistical software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC).
Results
Comparison of Baseline Characteristics
Clinical, echocardiographic parameters and quality of life
Comparison of the baseline clinical, echocardiographic and quality of life variables are shown in Table 1. Smoking and anemia were more common and use of ACE/ARBs was less frequent in the XRT group. Both the groups had identical surgical risk (STS score) and functional status (KCCQ-12) scores at baseline.
Table 1.
Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population
| Variables* | All Subjects (n=610) | Non- XRT Group (n=535) | C-XRT Group (n=75) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical, demographic, and symptom variables | ||||
| Age (years) | 82.00±7.99 | 82.67±7.98 | 81.64±7.81 | 0.21 |
| Gender (M/F) | 320/290 | 29½44 | 29/46 | 0.013 |
| Body Mass Index, kg/m2 | 27.99±6.02 | 28.11±5.98 | 27.14±6.32 | 0.10 |
| Race | 0.38 | |||
| White | 587 (96.4) | 516 (96.6) | 71 (94.7) | |
| Blacks | 16 (2.6) | 12 (2.2) | 4 (5.3) | |
| Hispanics | 3 (0.5) | 3 (0.6) | ||
| Others | 3 (0.5) | 3 (0.6) | ||
| Hypertension | 542 (88.8) | 476 (88.9) | 66(88) | 0.84 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 205 (33.60) | 176 (32.5) | 31(41.3) | 0.15 |
| Hyperlipidemia | 355 (58.19) | 307(57.3) | 48(64) | 0.31 |
| Smoking history | 304 (49.83) | 251(46.9) | 53(70.6) | <0.0001 |
| Prior stroke | 63 (10.33) | 53 (9.9) | 10 (13.33) | 0.41 |
| COPD | 263 (43.11) | 229(42.8) | 34(45.33) | 0.7 |
| CAD | 357 (58.52) | 307 (57.3) | 50(66.67) | 0.13 |
| 3-Vessel CAD | 170 (27.9) | 147 (27.5) | 23 (30.7) | 0.58 |
| End-stage renal disease | 31 (5.08) | 26(4.8) | 5(6.67) | 0.57 |
| Atrial fibrillation | 249 (40.81) | 223 (41.6) | 26(34.6) | 0.26 |
| PAD | 224 (36.72) | 201(37.57) | 23(30.6) | 0.3 |
| Prior CABG | 192 (31.47) | 166(31.0) | 26 (34.67) | 0.51 |
| Pacemaker Implant History | 100 (16.39) | 82 (15.33) | 18 (24.00) | 0.06 |
| ICM (EF <50 % with CAD) | 111 (18.19) | 97(18.1) | 14(18.67) | 0.87 |
| NYHA Class | 0.36 | |||
| I | 4 (0.7) | 4 (0.7) | ||
| II | 76 (12.5) | 65 (12.1) | 11 (14.7) | |
| III | 462 (75.7) | 410 (76.6) | 52 (69.3) | |
| IV | 68 (11.1) | 56 (10.5) | 12 (16.0) | |
| Syncope | 38 (6.2) | 33 (6.17) | 5(6.67) | 0.8 |
| Angina | 194 (31.8) | 172 (32.15) | 22 (29.33) | 0.69 |
| Dyspnea on exertion | 555 (91) | 487 (91.03) | 68 (90.67) | 0.83 |
| FEV1 ( % of predicted) | 75.14±24.6 | 75.16±24.81 | 75.02±23.73 | 0.96 |
| STS score, Mean | 9.03±5.4 | 9.02±5.41 | 9.11±5.06 | 0.7 |
| STS Score, Median (Interquartile) | 8.1 (5.3–11) | 8.1 (5.3–11) | 8.1 (5.4–11) | |
| KCCQ12 Index | 36.4±19.6 | 36.80±19.78 | 33.72±18.2 | 0.2 |
| Laboratory data | ||||
| Creatinine, mg/dl | 1.4±1.1 | 1.38±1.12 | 1.39±1.10 | 0.92 |
| Glomerular filtration rate, mL/min per 1.73m2 | 53.6±22.3 | 53.68±22.45 | 52.79±21.4 | 0.74 |
| Hemoglobin, mg/dl | 12±1.8 | 12.07±1.80 | 11.60±1.49 | 0.03 |
| Medications | ||||
| Aspirin | 402 (66) | 354 (66.1) | 48(73.8) | 0.26 |
| Beta-blockers | 491 (80.5) | 433 (80.9) | 58 (81.6) | 1 |
| ACE-I/ARBs | 215 (35.2) | 200 (37.3) | 15 (23.0) | 0.02 |
| Statins | 356 (58.4) | 307 (75.3) | 49 (65.3) | 0.21 |
| Echo Parameters | ||||
| LVEF | 54.6±13 | 54.46±13.1 | 55.65±12.40 | 0.45 |
| AVA (cm2) | 0.65±0.2 | 0.65±0.2 | 0.63±0.2 | 0.36 |
| Mean AV gradient (mm Hg) | 41.14±15.28 | 40.87±15.48 | 43.06±13.67 | 0.24 |
| Peak AV gradient (mm Hg) | 67.04±24.72 | 66.90±25.02 | 68.05±22.61 | 0.7 |
| LV-SVI (ml/m2) | 37.14±13.50 | 36.72±13.49 | 40.11±13.30 | 0.04 |
| Abnormal LV-SVI (<35 mL/m2) | 294(48.2) | 271 (50.65) | 23 (30.67) | 0.001 |
| RVSP (mm Hg) | 47.24±14 | 47.11±14.13 | 48.18±13.07 | 0.53 |
| Moderate-Severe AR | 99 (16.22) | 85(15.89) | 14 (18.66) | 0.52 |
| Moderate-Severe MR | 127 (20.81) | 106 (19.81) | 21 (28.00) | 0.21 |
| Moderate-Severe TR | 110 (18.03) | 95 (17.76) | 15 (20.00) | 0.48 |
| Moderate-Severe MS | 45 (7.37) | 34 (6.36) | 11 (14.67) | 0.01 |
Values are expressed as number (percentage) or mean ±SD. C-XRT indicates mediastinal radiation therapy; CAD-coronary artery disease; COPD-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; PAD-periphery artery disease; CABG-coronary artery bypass grafting; ICM-ischemic cardiomyopathy; FEV1-forced expiratory volume at 1 second; STS-Society of Thoracic Surgeons; KCCQ12-Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; ACE-I/ARBs-Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/ Angiotensin II receptor; LVEF-left ventricular ejection fraction; AVA-aortic valve area; AV-aortic valve; LV-SVI-left ventricular stroke volume index; RVSP-right ventricular systolic pressure; AR-aortic regurgitation; MR-mitral regurgitation; TR-tricuspid regurgitation; MS-mitral stenosis.
Natural history and presence of multivalvular lesions
The median time from C-XRT to TAVR was 19.0 years (Mean 20.1±4.9 yrs.). Of the 75 symptomatic severe aortic stenosis patients with prior C-XRT who underwent TAVR, breast cancer (44%) was the commonest reason for C-XRT followed by Hodgkin’s lymphoma (31%), lung cancer (15%), non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (7%) and others (3%). Among breast cancer survivors who had C-XRT, 64% had left sided malignancy.
Moderate to severe aortic, mitral and tricuspid regurgitation was seen in 16.2%, 20.8% and 18% of the total study subjects, respectively. The incidence of moderate-severe mitral stenosis was disproportionately higher in the XRT group.
Age and Sex Disparities
Females were disproportionally more frequent among the cancer survivors with prior C-XRT (XRT: 61%, non-XRT: 45%, p=0.01), which likely reflects the higher proportion of breast cancer survivors in the XRT group. The male population was slightly younger than females at the time of TAVR (mean age, male/female: 81.3±8.2 vs 82.8± 7.6, p=0.02). Mean STS score was higher in females (male/female: 8.2±4.6 vs 9.9±5.9, p<0.0001).
The incidence of AF and AV block requiring PPM were more common in females but there were no differences in all-cause mortality, MACE, major bleeding, or length of hospital stay among male or female patients.
Females subjects had lower KCCQ-12 scores at 30 days and 1-year follow-up compared to male counterparts (male/female, mean score at 30 days: 80.88 ±15.88 vs. 77.46 ± 18.20, p=0.01; at 1 year: 84.51±12.14 vs. 81.44 ± 14.61, p=0.008) though there was no difference in their baseline score.
In a subgroup analysis of all females who underwent TAVR (N=290, XRT= 46; non-XRT=244), females who had C-XRT were slightly younger (mean age, XRT vs. without XRT: 80.8±8.4 vs. 83.2±7.5, p=0.04).
Comparison of Peri-Procedural Events
Perioperative and post-operative characteristics are shown in Table 2. There were no differences in intravascular access, procedure duration or type of valves used among the groups.
Table 2.
Perioperative and Postoperative Characteristics of the Study Population
| Variable* | All Subjects (n=610) | Non- XRT Group (n=535) | C-XRT Group (n=75) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TAVR Access/duration | ||||
| Femoral Access | 535 (87.7) | 472 (88.22) | 63 (84.0) | 0.34 |
| Median Procedure duration (hrs:mins/ interquartile) | 2:17 (1:40–2:48) | 2:16 (1:04–3:28) | 2:23 (1:29–3:07) | 0.38 |
| Valve types: | ||||
| Edwards Sapien | 500 (81.9) | 438 (81.87) | 62(82.67) | 0.86 |
| Core Valve | 110 (18.1) | 97 (18.13) | 13 (17.33) | |
| Post-procedure parameters | ||||
| Mod-severe Paravalvular leak | 9 (1.48) | 8 (1.5) | 1 (1.35) | 0.91 |
| Post-procedure Hb | 9.66±1.75 | 9.73±1.76 | 9.12±1.6 | 0.004 |
| Post-procedure Creatinine | 1.52±1.34 | 1.50±1.28 | 1.64±1.7 | 0.41 |
| Creatinine at discharge | 1.3±1.1 | 1.3±1.1 | 1.28±1.1 | 0.73 |
| Post TAVR LVEF | 55.05±12.4 | 54.72±12.74 | 57.4±9.8 | 0.081 |
| Post TAVR AVA, cm2 | 1.90±0.49 | 1.91±0.49 | 1.87±0.5 | 0.53 |
| Post TAVR Peak gradient, mm Hg | 7.93±4.64 | 7.94±4.59 | 7.87±5 | 0.9 |
| Post TAVR mean gradient, mm Hg | 3.62±2.28 | 3.62±2.23 | 3.64±2.6 | 0.94 |
Values are expressed as number (percentage) or mean ±SD.
C-XRT indicates mediastinal radiation exposure; Hb, hemoglobin; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; AVA, aortic valve area.
The overall incidence of moderate to severe paravalvular leak post-TAVR was less than 1.5% in the entire study subjects and there were no significant differences among the groups.
Post-TAVR Outcomes
The short and long-term events and quality of life measures after TAVR are shown in Table 3.
Table 3.
Short and Long-term Outcomes Post-TAVR
| Outcomes* | All Subjects (n=610) | Non- XRT Group (n=535) | C-XRT Group (n=75) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Early Events | ||||
| ICU LOS (hrs) | 41.9±43.1 | 41.50±43.19 | 44.67±43.00 | 0.55 |
| Hospital LOS (days) | 5.2±6.5 | 5.32±6.84 | 4.52±3.64 | 0.31 |
| In Hospital AMI | 1 (0.16) | 1(0.19) | 0(0) | 1.0 |
| In Hospital AF | 49 (8.03) | 13(2.43) | 36(48.00) | <0.0001 |
| In Hospital stroke | 9 (1.48) | 5 (0.93) | 4 (5.33) | 0.01 |
| In Hospital cardiac arrest | 20 (3.28) | 15 (2.80) | 5 (6.67) | 0.08 |
| In Hospital Mortality | 17 (2.79) | 12 (2.24) | 5 (6.67) | 0.04 |
| 30-day Mortality | 17 (2.79) | 12 (2.24) | 5 (6.67) | 0.04 |
| Major bleed | 63 (10.33) | 52 (9.72) | 11 (14.67) | 0.22 |
| Long-term Events | ||||
| AMI and/or urgent PCI | 35 (5.74) | 31 (5.79) | 4 (5.33) | 1.00 |
| Stroke/TIA | 36 (5.90) | 27 (5.05) | 9 (12.00) | 0.03 |
| HF admission | 113 (18.52) | 90 (16.82) | 23 (30.67) | 0.006 |
| PPM implants | 64 (10.49) | 49 (9.16) | 15 (20.0) | 0.007 |
| CV Mortality | 50 (48.54) | 36 (44.44) | 14 (63.64) | 0.14 |
| All-Cause Mortality | 103 (16.89) | 81 (15.14) | 22 (29.33) | 0.004 |
| MACE | 185 (30.33) | 144 (26.92) | 41 (54.67) | <0.0001 |
| Quality of Life measures | ||||
| Home Disposition post TAVR | 513 (84.10) | 451 (84.30) | 62 (82.67) | 0.73 |
| KCCQ12 at 30 days | 79.23±17.11 | 79.27±16.98 | 78.96±18.20 | 0.88 |
| KCCQ12 at 1 year | 83.02±13.47 | 82.86±13.55 | 84.29±12.81 | 0.44 |
Values are expressed as number (percentage) or mean ±SD. C-XRT indicates mediastinal radiation therapy; ICU-intensive care unit; LOS-length of stay; AF-atrial Fibrillation; AMI-acute myocardial infarction; PCI-percutaneous coronary intervention; TIA-transient ischemic attack; HF-heart failure; PPM-permanent pacemaker; CV-cardiovascular; MACE-major cardiovascular adverse event (CV death/MI/Stroke/HF); KCCQ12-Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire.
Short-term outcomes
The overall in-hospital incidences for AMI, AF, stroke and all-cause mortality were 0.5%, 8%, 1.5%, and 2.8%, respectively. XRT group had higher incidence of in-hospital AF, stroke and all-cause mortality but no difference in 30 days mortality or major bleeding among the groups.
Long-term Outcomes
During a mean follow up of 17.1 months (median: 13 months) post-TAVR, the all-cause mortality was 17% in the study population. Similarly, the incidence of MACE was 30% in the entire study population. There were significantly higher rates of mortality and MACE in the XRT group (XRT/non-XRT groups: Death, 29% vs 15%, p=0.004; MACE, 54% vs 27%, p<0.0001, respectively). The overall incidence of high-grade AV block requiring PPM implantation was 10.5% in all the study subjects and was disproportionally higher in XRT group (XRT/non-XRT group: 19 % vs 9%, p=0.001).
Time to event survival analysis by Kaplan-Meier analysis showed reduced survival and increased incidence of MACE in the XRT group as shown in Figure 1A–B. Similarly, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed increased incidence of HF and stroke but not for CV mortality and AMI or urgent revascularization in the XRT group as shown in Figures 2A–D.
Figure 1A-B.
Kaplan-Meier survival curves for All-cause Mortality and MACE (major adverse cardiovascular events) in the entire study population separated into 2 subgroups: Chest radiotherapy (XRT group) versus comparison group (Non-XRT).
Figure 2A-D.
Kaplan-Meier curves for (A) cardiac mortality, (B) stroke/TIA, (C) heart failure hospitalization and (D)myocardial infraction/PCI in the entire study population separated into 2 subgroups: chest radiotherapy (XRT group) versus comparison (Non-XRT group).
The results of the univariate and multivariate cox proportional hazard analysis for all-cause mortality are shown in Table 4. Prior C-XRT exposure (HR: 2.07; 95% CI:1.24–3.31, p=0.005), poor renal function post TAVR (HR: 1.43, 95% CI:1.11–1.85, p=0.004) and post-operative anemia requiring transfusion (HR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.05–1.30, p=0.003) were the strongest predictors of reduced survival.
Table 4.
Univariate and Multivariable Cox Proportional Hazard analysis for All-Cause Mortality
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard Ratio (95% CI) | p value | Hazard Ratio (95% CI) | p value | |
| Clinical variables | ||||
| Prior XRT | 1.94 (1.18–3.06) | 0.009 | 2.07 (1.24–3.31) | 0.005 |
| STS score (per unit change) | 1.04 (1.01–1.07) | 0.001 | 1.00 (0.96–1.03) | 0.93 |
| Age (per unit change) | 0.99 (0.97–1.02) | 0.7 | ||
| Gender (Male versus Female) | 1.2 (0.81–1.78) | 0.35 | ||
| BMI (kg/m2, per unit change) | 0.99(0.96–1.03) | 0.9 | ||
| Hypertension | 1.21 (0.62–2.72) | 0.58 | ||
| Diabetes mellitus | 1.00(0.66–1.50) | 0.96 | ||
| Hyperlipidemia | 1.54 (1.02–2.37) | 0.03 | 1.48 (0.96–2.31) | 0.07 |
| Smoking | 1.37 (0.92–2.04) | 0.11 | ||
| Prior Stroke | 1.60 (0.98–2.51) | 0.05 | ||
| COPD | 1.49 (1.01–2.20) | 0.04 | 1.21 (0.74–2.00) | 0.43 |
| CAD | 1.29 (0.86–1.97) | 0.21 | ||
| 3 Vessel CAD | 0.85(0.53–1.32) | 0.49 | ||
| End stage renal disease | 3.03 (1.61–5.23) | 0.001 | 0.96 (0.28–2.92) | 0.94 |
| Peripheral artery disease | 1.24 (0.82–1.84) | 0.29 | ||
| Atrial Fibrillation | 1.30 (0.87–1.92) | 0.18 | ||
| Prior Cardiac surgery | 0.90 (0.59–1.36) | 0.65 | ||
| ICM (EF<50% and CAD) | 1.25(0.73–1.89) | 0.44 | ||
| Previous PCI | 1.03(0.62–1.64) | 0.88 | ||
| Prior Pacemaker | 1.24 (0.74–1.99) | 0.38 | ||
| Angina | 0.97 (0.90–1.46) | 0.9 | ||
| Syncope | 1.21 (0.53–2.36) | 0.61 | ||
| Dyspnea on exertion | 1.37 (0.70–3.10) | 0.36 | ||
| Pre-TAVR KCCQ12 score (per unit change) | 0.37 (0.12–1.06) | 0.06 | ||
| Lab /Echo Variable | ||||
| Pre-TAVR Hb (gm, per unit change) | 0.79 (0.70–0.89) | 0.0002 | 090 (0.78–1.04) | 0.17 |
| Creatinine (per unit change) | 1.22 (1.09–1.33) | 0.0006 | 0.87 (0.66–1.13) | 0.32 |
| eGFR (per unit change) | 0.99 (0.98–1.00) | 0.13 | ||
| FEV1 (per unit change) | 0.98 (0.98–0.99) | 0.01 | 0.99 (0.98–1.00) | 0.43 |
| LV EF (%, per unit change) | 0.99 (0.98–1.01) | 0.59 | ||
| AR (per level increase in severity) | 1.26 (0.71–2.24) | 0.06 | ||
| Presence of MS | 1.80 (0.96–3.12) | 0.06 | ||
| MR (per level increase in severity) | 1.32(0.69–2.51) | 0.33 | ||
| TR (per level increase in severity) | 0.81 (0.41–1.58) | 0.36 | ||
| AVA (cm2, per unit change) | 1.38 (0.47–3.87) | 0.54 | ||
| Mean AV gradient (mmHg, per unit change) | 0.99 (0.98–1.00) | 0.43 | ||
| Peak AV gradient (mmHg, per unit change) | 0.99 (0.99–1.00) | 0.88 | ||
| Reduced LV-SVI | 1.13 (0.76–1.67) | 0.51 | ||
| RVSP (mmHg, per unit change) | 1.01 (1.00–1.02) | 0.01 | 1.01 (0.99–1.02) | 0.05 |
| Medications | ||||
| Aspirin | 1.15 (0.76–1.78) | 0.5 | ||
| Beta-Blocker | 1.37 (0.79–2.58) | 0.27 | ||
| Statins | 1.52 (0.99–2.32) | 0.05 | ||
| ACE/ARBs | 1.05 (0.69–1.57) | 0.81 | ||
| Operative and Post-Operative variables | ||||
| Operative time (in hours, per unit change) | 1.00 (0.99–1.00) | 0.09 | ||
| TVT Access (Femoral vs others) | 1.07 (0.63–1.94) | 0.8 | ||
| Type of Valve (Edward Sapiens vs Core valve) | 0.77 (0.48–1.29) | 0.31 | ||
| Para-valvular leak (mod-severe) | 0.58 (0.09–2.01) | 0.18 | ||
| Post Op Atrial fibrillation | 1.55 (0.82–2.68) | 0.16 | ||
| Creatinine at discharge (mg, per unit change) | 1.33 (1.19–1.47) | <0.001 | 1.43(1.11–1.85) | 0.004 |
| Post procedure Hb (gm, per unit change) | 0.82 (0.72–0.92) | 0.001 | 1.03(0.87–1.23) | 0.66 |
| Per units’ blood transfused | 1.22 (1.12–1.32) | <0.0001 | 1.17 (1.05–1.30) | 0.003 |
| Post-LVEF (%, per unit change) | 0.99 (0.97–1.00) | 0.29 | ||
Chi-square for the overall multivariate model was 54.82, p<0.0001. XRT indicates mediastinal radiation exposure; STS, Society of Thoracic Surgeons; BMI, body mass index; CAD, coronary artery disease; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; ICM, ischemic cardiomyopathy; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; Hb, hemoglobin; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; AVA, aortic valve area; AV, aortic valve; LV-SVI, left ventricular stroke volume index; RVSP, right ventricular systolic pressure; AR, aortic regurgitation; MR, mitral regurgitation; TR, tricuspid regurgitation; MS, mitral stenosis; FEV1, forced expiratory volume at 1 second; KCCQ12, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire.
Quality of Life Outcomes
Nearly 84% of the subjects were able to leave the hospital on average 6 days after TAVR. There was an increased trend toward a longer in-hospital stay in XRT group, however this didn’t reach statistical significance. Functional status as measured by KCCQ-12 at baseline, 30 days and 1 year after TAVR were similar among groups as shown in Supplemental Figure 1. When compared in all subjects, those who were surviving had higher recovery of KCCQ-12 at 30 days, however no difference at 1 year as shown in Supplemental Figure 2.
Subgroup Analysis Within the XRT Group
Age and sex disparities in XRT group
In subgroup analysis of the XRT group (N=75), there was no difference in the mean STS score among male or female subjects. Angina was more common in female subjects (male/female: 13.7% vs. 39.13%, p=0.02). Overall, 50% of the patients had prior CAD with a higher incidence in male patients (male vs. female: 82.7% vs. 56.5%, p=0.02). All-cause mortality was higher in males compared to females (male/female:51.7% vs 15.22%, p<0.001), however there was no differences in 30-day mortality, MACE, KCCQ-12 among male or female subjects. After TAVR, there was an average improvement of KCCQ-12 scores by 44.5 ± 21.02 and 48.95± 19.87 points at 30 days and 1 year, respectively, which was similar compared to all subjects in the study.
Clinical outcomes in relation to cancer types
In cancer survivors, the all-cause mortality differed according to the cancer types, which has been summarized in the Supplemental Table 1. Similarly, the MACE outcomes differed according to the cancer types and were highest among Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients. The incidence of stroke was also highest among Hodgkin’s lymphoma followed by breast cancer, and none in other cancer survivors during the follow-up period.
Discussion
Our study demonstrates that patients who underwent TAVR with prior C-XRT for thoracic cancers have poor survival compared to the those who had undergone same procedure. Furthermore, those who had prior C-XRT had less than 50% freedom from MACE during average of 17.1 months follow-up. This is the first study evaluating the long-term outcome of TAVR in thoracic cancer survivors with prior history of C-XRT.
Prognostic impact of prior chest radiation on survival:
Our data demonstrated that the patients with prior C-XRT had nearly 2-fold increase in mortality after the median follow-up duration of 17 months after TAVR. The mortality differences between the XRT and control groups were discernible at the early in-hospital period and became more prominent with increasing follow-up interval. Our multivariate analysis revealed prior C-XRT, post-operative anemia requiring blood transfusion and poor renal function as the significant predictors of reduced survival. Larger multicenter studies on the long-term outcomes of RIVHD are limited. Based on a recent study in patients with SAVR and CABG, presence of prior C-XRT was associated with worse longer-term survival 8. Other smaller studies in prior C-XRT have also reported the presence of constrictive pericarditis, reduced pre-operative LVEF, concomitant pulmonary fibrosis, longer cardiopulmonary bypass time and hostile chest environment (radiation induced fibrosis/adhesions, and presence of multiple cardiac lesions) to be strongly associated with increased mortality 20–23. In our study, we found no significant differences in pre-operative LVEF and FEV1 in patients with prior C-XRT and hostile chest environment likely have less impact in these patients since TAVR involves percutaneous approaches. Besides, there was higher incidence of HF, AF, stroke and AV conduction abnormalities requiring PPM in the XRT subsets, which might also have contributed to the increased mortality. These data are important for prior adjudication and counseling of patients prone to develop such complications.
Incidence of atrial fibrillation, stroke, heart failure and conduction abnormalities:
We noted higher incidence of AF in XRT cohorts after TAVR. Prior study from Siregar and associates showed increased incidence of AF after cardiac surgery in Hodgkin’s lymphoma survivors with history of C-XRT24. Other studies have also demonstrated a higher prevalence of AF in patients with history of cancer. One plausible explanation for this observation is the presence of shared risk factors for AF and cancer including age, higher body mass index, hypertension and history of smoking 25. There is evidence that radiation induces a low-grade inflammation in the myocardium which can lead to progressive interstitial fibrosis 26. Presence of inflammation and fibrosis in the atrial tissues can increase the propensity to develop AF. Ascertainment of the mechanisms of increased incidence of AF in these patients will probably need cardiac MRI with comprehensive tissue characterization or histological analysis of the affected cardiac tissue.
Additionally, patients with prior C-XRT showed nearly double the incidence of stroke post-TAVR. The incidence of stroke in our patients without prior C-XRT was identical to previously reported incidence at 3–6% 27. Patients with prior C-XRT also had higher incidence of AF, which might have contributed to the increased incidence of stroke, but it’s also plausible that these patients have higher incidence of atherosclerosis and aortic calcifications that are known to increase the propensity for stroke with percutaneous vessel manipulation during TAVR 14,28,29. With increasing use of distal protective devices during TAVR, the incidence of stroke, particularly related to atheroma breakdown, is expected to decline 30. Moreover, patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma had higher incidence of stroke compared to other cancer subtypes which may relate to increased risk of atherosclerosis from higher dose of mediastinal radiation on the large arteries. Future prospective studies will need to address whether oral anticoagulation is beneficial in these patients.
The incidence of HF hospitalization was almost double in the XRT group (nearly 31%) despite no differences in their baseline LVEF. Prior studies have demonstrated that nearly a quarter of the patients return to hospital within a year due to HF post-TAVR 31. A seminal study by Durand and associates reported that pre-TAVR low aortic mean gradient, left atrial dilation, post-procedure anemia requiring blood transfusion and persistent severe pulmonary hypertension post-TAVR were associated with increased incidence of HF hospitalization 31. In our XRT group, aortic mean gradients before and after TAVR, and right ventricular systolic pressure at baseline were similar compared to non-XRT group. However, the incidence of anemia and need for blood transfusion was higher in XRT group which is consistent with earlier findings and might have played a contributory role for cardiac decompensation. It is also important to state the role of diastolic function in HF patients with C-XRT since it is known to induce myocardial fibrosis perpetuating diastolic dysfunction, which was not completely addressed in our study 26,32.
The incidence of PPM implant in our patients undergoing TAVR was ~10%. Notably, patients with C-XRT had double the incidence (~20%) of conduction abnormalities requiring PPM. While the exact mechanisms for these conduction abnormalities are not well understood, these are likely contributed by microvascular damage, ischemia of the conducting myocytes or direct injury of the sinoatrial node, atrioventricular node and conducting myocytes 32. This is an important finding since TAVR procedure in itself has higher incidence of high-grade conduction abnormalities compared to SAVR with need for PPM approaching up to 25% in some studies. In patients with prior C-XRT, a close monitoring is needed to detect and treat these life-threating conduction diseases 33.
Gender disparity within C-XRT TAVR:
We noted higher incidence of all-cause mortality in male counterparts compared to females who had prior C-XRT but no significant differences in MACE or cardiac mortality. Though males had higher prevalence of underlying CAD and lower pulmonary functional capacity at baseline, females had more anginal symptoms compared to male counterparts who had prior chest XRT. Previous studies by Chandrasekhar et al and Hayashida et al showed that females had better survival at 1 year after TAVR compared to male counterparts34,35. Thus, it is important to note that outcomes of TAVR based on gender analysis is similar in patients with prior C-XRT versus general population undergoing TAVR and male had overall worse outcomes. The effects of chest radiation on gender in these subsets of patients are unknown and warrant further studies.
Quality of life:
The overall baseline functional status of all the patients was poor based on KCCQ-12 score categorization, with a trend towards a very poor category in patients with prior C-XRT 36. The overall functional status seemed similar to previously reported data from the TVT registry 37. On average, post TAVR, there were similar improvements in both the groups by more than average of 40 points in the KCCQ12 scores at 30 days and at 1-year after TAVR which are slightly higher than previously reported in clinical trials or data from TVT registry 36–38. Our study also shows that patients with lower pre-procedure and smaller improvement of the KCCQ-12 score post-TAVR are likely to have higher mortality. This finding can further guide the clinicians in selecting patients who can benefit from TAVR and help prognosticating the outcomes after TAVR.
Limitations:
We acknowledge the following limitations. First, our study is an observational cohort study and lacks the inherent strength of a randomized controlled trial. However, this study provides important insight into the natural history of TAVR for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis patients with prior history of C-XRT. Second, there remains the concern for an adequate capture of clinical outcomes mainly resulting from lack of formal follow-up beyond 12-months. For patients who did not follow up clinically in our health-care system, we obtained their data by shared clinical chart review and standardized telephone interview. Besides, the trends of primary and secondary events separated significantly early between the two groups and continued to widen over the duration of follow-up which suggests a potentially even greater magnitude of difference over time. Third, our study was not able to specify the radiation dose and adjuvant chemotherapy regimens which might have impacted the cardiovascular outcomes. We know that anthracyclines can cause cardiotoxicity leading to cardiomyopathy and heart failure, but antracyclines are not known to cause valvular stenosis. The effect of additional adjuvant regimens in patients with prior C-XRT undergoing TAVR is undefined and needs further study39, 40.
Conclusions:
Based on this observational study, we conclude that patients with prior history of chest radiation treatment are at higher risk of adverse cardiovascular events and poor survival after TAVR. These patients may require more robust screening, follow up and clinical vigilance as they tend to do worse than general population undergoing TAVR. These data will also help in pre-procedure counselling of these patients.
Supplementary Material
Supplemental Figure 1: Graph showing KCCQ12 score at pre TAVR, 1 month and one-year post TAVR in the entire study population and separated into 2 subgroups: chest radiotherapy (XRT group) versus comparison (Non-XRT group).
Supplemental Figure 2: Graph showing KCCQ12 score at pre TAVR, 1 month and one-year post TAVR in the entire study population and separated into 2 subgroups: surviving vs non-surviving groups). * denotes statistically significant differences among the groups.
Acknowledgements:
Funding: This research was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (award number UL1TR001412) to the University at Buffalo. Dr. Sharma is supported by Mentored Career Development Award from the NIH/NHLBI 5 K08 HL131987–02. Dr. Pokharel and Dr. Attwood are supported by Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center and National Cancer Institute (NCI) grant P30CA016056.
List of Abbreviations:
- (AMI)
Acute Myocardial Infarction
- (AF)
Atrial Fibrillation
- (AV)
Atrioventricular
- (HF)
Heart Failure
- (MACE)
Major Adverse Cardiac Events
- (PPM)
Permanent Pacemaker
- (KCCQ-12)
Quality of Life Questionnaire
- (RIVHD)
Radiation-Induced Valvular Heart Disease
- (XRT)
Thoracic Ionizing Radiation
Footnotes
Availability of Data and Materials: The published data will be made available upon satisfactory written request.
Ethics Approval: All clinical procedures and protocols conformed to institutional guidelines and were approved by the Institutional review board (IRB) at University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
Consent for Publication: Not applicable
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
- 1.Mahmood SS, Nohria A. Cardiovascular Complications of Cranial and Neck Radiation. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med 2016;18(7):45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Nabialek-Trojanowska I, Lewicka E, Wrona A, et al. Cardiovascular complications after radiotherapy. Cardiol J 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 3.Gustavsson A, Osterman B, Cavallin-Stahl E. A systematic overview of radiation therapy effects in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Acta Oncol 2003;42(5–6):605–619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Armanious MA, Mohammadi H, Khodor S, Oliver DE, Johnstone PA, Fradley MG. Cardiovascular effects of radiation therapy. Curr Probl Cancer 2018;42(4):433–442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Copeland KA, Hosmane VR, Jurkovitz C, et al. Frequency of severe valvular disease caused by mediastinal radiation among patients undergoing valve surgery in a community-based, regional academic medical center. Clin Cardiol 2013;36(4):217–221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Mousavi N, Nohria A. Radiation-induced cardiovascular disease. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med 2013;15(5):507–517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Bouillon K, Haddy N, Delaloge S, et al. Long-term cardiovascular mortality after radiotherapy for breast cancer. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57(4):445–452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Donnellan E, Masri A, Johnston DR, et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Patients With Mediastinal Radiation-Associated Severe Aortic Stenosis and Subsequent Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Matched Cohort Study. J Am Heart Assoc 2017;6(5). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Carver JR, Shapiro CL, Ng A, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical evidence review on the ongoing care of adult cancer survivors: cardiac and pulmonary late effects. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(25):3991–4008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Jaworski C, Mariani JA, Wheeler G, Kaye DM. Cardiac complications of thoracic irradiation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61(23):2319–2328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Adams MJ, Hardenbergh PH, Constine LS, Lipshultz SE. Radiation-associated cardiovascular disease. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2003;45(1):55–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Wethal T, Lund MB, Edvardsen T, et al. Valvular dysfunction and left ventricular changes in Hodgkin’s lymphoma survivors. A longitudinal study. Br J Cancer 2009;101(4):575–581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Tamura A, Takahara Y, Mogi K, Katsumata M. Radiation-induced valvular disease is the logical consequence of irradiation. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;55(2):53–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hull MC, Morris CG, Pepine CJ, Mendenhall NP. Valvular dysfunction and carotid, subclavian, and coronary artery disease in survivors of hodgkin lymphoma treated with radiation therapy. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association 2003;290(21):2831–2837. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Waksman R, Rogers T, Torguson R, et al. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients with Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 16.Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;16(3):233–270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Baumgartner H, Hung J, Bermejo J, et al. Echocardiographic assessment of valve stenosis: EAE/ASE recommendations for clinical practice. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2009;22(1):1–23; quiz 101–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Schulman S, Kearon C, Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation of the S, Standardization Committee of the International Society on T, Haemostasis. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost 2005;3(4):692–694. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Schulman S, Angeras U, Bergqvist D, et al. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost 2010;8(1):202–204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Handa N, McGregor CG, Danielson GK, et al. Valvular heart operation in patients with previous mediastinal radiation therapy. The Annals of thoracic surgery 2001;71(6):1880–1884. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Hancock SL, Tucker MA, Hoppe RT. Factors affecting late mortality from heart disease after treatment of Hodgkin’s disease. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association 1993;270(16):1949–1955. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Chang AS, Smedira NG, Chang CL, et al. Cardiac surgery after mediastinal radiation: extent of exposure influences outcome. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;133(2):404–413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Desai MY, Karunakaravel K, Wu W, et al. Pulmonary fibrosis on multidetector computed tomography and mortality in patients with radiation-associated cardiac disease undergoing cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014;148(2):475–481 e473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Siregar S, de Heer F, van Herwerden LA. Cardiac surgery in patients irradiated for Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Neth Heart J 2010;18(2):61–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.O’Neal WT, Lakoski SG, Qureshi W, et al. Relation between cancer and atrial fibrillation (from the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke Study). The American journal of cardiology 2015;115(8):1090–1094. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.El-Sherif O, Xhaferllari I, Sykes J, et al. (18)F-FDG Cardiac PET inflammation imaging in a canine model of radiation induced cardiac disease associated with breast cancer radiotherapy. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2018. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 27.Ahmad Y, Demir O, Rajkumar C, et al. Optimal antiplatelet strategy after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a meta-analysis. Open Heart 2018;5(1):e000748. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Reed GW, Masri A, Griffin BP, Kapadia SR, Ellis SG, Desai MY. Long-Term Mortality in Patients With Radiation-Associated Coronary Artery Disease Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2016;9(6). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Daitoku K, Fukui K, Ichinoseki I, Munakata M, Takahashi S, Fukuda I. Radiotherapy-induced aortic valve disease associated with porcelain aorta. Jpn J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004;52(7):349–352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Demir OM, Iannopollo G, Mangieri A, et al. The Role of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Front Cardiovasc Med 2018;5:150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Durand E, Doutriaux M, Bettinger N, et al. Incidence, Prognostic Impact, and Predictive Factors of Readmission for Heart Failure After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017;10(23):2426–2436. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Taunk NK, Haffty BG, Kostis JB, Goyal S. Radiation-induced heart disease: pathologic abnormalities and putative mechanisms. Front Oncol 2015;5:39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Maan A, Refaat MM, Heist EK, et al. Incidence and Predictors of Pacemaker Implantation in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2015;38(7):878–886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Chandrasekhar J, Dangas G, Yu J, et al. Sex-Based Differences in Outcomes With Transcatheter Aortic Valve Therapy: TVT Registry From 2011 to 2014. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;68(25):2733–2744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Hayashida K, Morice MC, Chevalier B, et al. Sex-related differences in clinical presentation and outcome of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59(6):566–571. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Arnold SV, Spertus JA, Lei Y, et al. Use of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire for monitoring health status in patients with aortic stenosis. Circulation Heart failure 2013;6(1):61–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Arnold SV, Spertus JA, Vemulapalli S, et al. Quality-of-Life Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in an Unselected Population: A Report From the STS/ACC Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. JAMA Cardiol 2017;2(4):409–416. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Arnold SV, Reynolds MR, Lei Y, et al. Predictors of poor outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: results from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) trial. Circulation 2014;129(25):2682–2690. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Chung WB, Youn HJ. Pathophysiology and preventive strategies of anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity. Korean J Intern Med 2016;31(4):625–633. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Fukuda A, Tahara K, Hane Y, et al. Comparison of the adverse event profiles of conventional and liposomal formulations of doxorubicin using the FDA adverse event reporting system. PLoS One 2017;12(9):e0185654. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supplemental Figure 1: Graph showing KCCQ12 score at pre TAVR, 1 month and one-year post TAVR in the entire study population and separated into 2 subgroups: chest radiotherapy (XRT group) versus comparison (Non-XRT group).
Supplemental Figure 2: Graph showing KCCQ12 score at pre TAVR, 1 month and one-year post TAVR in the entire study population and separated into 2 subgroups: surviving vs non-surviving groups). * denotes statistically significant differences among the groups.