Cardiotoxicity is a well-recognised side effect of cancer-related therapies with a great impact on outcomes and quality of life in the cancer survivor population. The pathogenesis of chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity in patients with gastrointestinal cancers involves various molecular mechanisms, and the combined use of various chemotherapies augments the risk of each drug used alone. In terms of cardiotoxicity diagnosis, novel biomarkers, such as troponins, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), myeloperoxidases and miRNAs have been recently assessed. Echocardiography is a noninvasive imaging method of choice for the primary assessment of chemotherapy-treated patients to generally evaluate the cardiovascular impact of these drugs. Novel echocardiography techniques, like three-dimensional and stress echocardiography, will improve diagnosis efficacy. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can evaluate cardiac morphology, function and wall structure. Corroborated data have shown the importance of CMR in the early evaluation of patients with gastrointestinal cancers, treated with anticancer drugs, but further studies are required to improve risk stratification in these patients. In this article, we review some important aspects concerning the cardiotoxicity of antineoplastic drugs used in gastrointestinal cancers. We also discuss the mechanism of cardiotoxicity, the role of biomarkers and the imaging methods used in its detection.

Background: Cardiac arrhythmias and conduction abnormalities are frequently identified by emergency medical service staff in patients requesting emergency services. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study that aimed to analyze the characteristics of rhythm and conduction abnormalities in prehospital settings, in patients who requested emergency medical assistance for symptoms indicative for an arrhythmia or conduction abnormalities. Results: From 180 patients included in the study (90 from a tertiary and 90 from a non-tertiary medical center), 92.78% presented an arrhythmia and 15.56% a conduction abnormality. A clear etiology was found in only 29.44% of cases. Ischemic patients presented a higher rate of atrial fibrillation (AF) (p <0.0001), while sinus tachycardia was more common in non-ischemic subjects (p = 0.02). Patients younger than 50 years of age presented higher rates of sinus tachycardia (p <0.0001) and right bundle branch block (p = 0.001), while those older than 50 years presented higher rates of AF (p <0.0001) and ventricular extrasystole (p = 0.014). There were no differences regarding the type of arrhythmia diagnosed in emergency settings, neither between genders or provenance environments, nor between regions served by a tertiary versus non-tertiary base station hospital. Conclusions: The most frequently diagnosed arrhythmias in prehospital settings were atrial fibrillation and sinus tachycardia, while atrioventricular blocks were the most frequent conduction disturbances. Young patients more frequently present sinus tachycardia or right bundle branch blocks, while older subjects are more prone to develop ischemia-related AF and ventricular extrasystole. The lack of any significant differences between systems served by a tertiary vs. non-tertiary medical center indicates an efficient emergency system of care regardless of the geographical region.

In the present paper, we discuss cardiac symptoms in Fabry patients, the main imaging and laboratory methods to diagnose myocardial involvement in this disease. In the second part, we present the main treatment options in Fabry patients, including enzyme replacement therapy, substrate reduction treatment, chaperone therapy, gene treatment.