Kounis syndrome (KS) has been defined as acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the context of a hypersensitivity reaction. Patients may present with normal coronary arteries (Type I), established coronary artery disease (Type II) or in-stent thrombosis and restenosis (Type III). We searched PubMed until 1 January 2020 for KS case reports. Patients with age <18 years, non-coronary vascular manifestations or without an established diagnosis were excluded. Information regarding patient demographics, medical history, presentation, allergic reaction trigger, angiography, laboratory values and management were extracted from every report. The data were pulled in a combined dataset. From 288 patients with KS, 57.6% had Type I, 24.7% Type II and 6.6% Type III, while 11.1% could not be classified. The mean age was 54.1 years and 70.6% were male. Most presented with a combination of cardiac and allergic symptoms, with medication being the most common trigger. Electrocardiographically, 75.1% had ST segment elevation with only 3.3% demonstrating no abnormalities. Coronary imaging was available in 84.8% of the patients, showing occlusive lesions (32.5%), vascular spasm (16.2%) or normal coronary arteries (51.3%). Revascularization was pursued in 29.4% of the cases. In conclusion, allergic reactions may be complicated by ACS. KS should be considered in the differential diagnosis of myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries.

Radial artery (RA) occlusion (RAO) remains the Achilles heel of transradial coronary procedures. Although of silent nature, RAO is relatively frequent, results in graft shortage for future coronary artery bypass surgery, and may occur even after short-lasting, 5F coronary angiography (CAG). The most frequent predictors of RAO are RA size, body size, female gender, and periprocedural anticoagulation intensity. Methods to detect RAO are variable, of which the Barbeau test and ultrasonography have similar diagnostic accuracy. Data indicate that late RAO recanalization may occur. Meticulous handling of RA and the use of appropriate hemostatic devices and techniques along with sufficient heparin dose appear important measures to reduce RAO rates. Recent contradictory studies indicate that the decreasing incidence of RAO overtime is not as uniform as previously thought. In 2 meta-analyses, the benefit of higher over lower anticoagulation intensity became evident. As “it may all be appropriate anticoagulation” for a simplified approach against RAO, the results of an ongoing trial comparing 100 with 50 IU/kg body weight in transradial CAG are eagerly awaited.

Cancer therapy can result in acute cardiac events, such as coronary artery spasm, acute myocardial infarction, thromboembolism, myocarditis, bradycardia, tachyarrhythmias, atrio-ventricular blocks, QT prolongation, torsades de pointes, pericardial effusion, and hypotension, as well as chronic conditions, such as hypertension, and systolic and diastolic left ventricular dysfunction presenting clinically as heart failure or cardiomyopathy. In cardio-oncology, when referring to cardiac toxicity and cardiovascular hypersensitivity, there is a great deal of misunderstanding. When a dose-related cardiovascular side effect continues even after the causative medication is stopped, it is referred to as a cardiotoxicity. A fibrotic response is the ultimate outcome of cardiac toxicity, which is defined as a dose-related cardiovascular adverse impact that lasts even after the causative treatment is stopped. Cardiotoxicity can occur after a single or brief exposure. On the other hand, the term cardiac or cardiovascular hypersensitivity describes an inflammatory reaction that is not dose-dependent, can occur at any point during therapy, even at very low medication dosages, and can present as Kounis syndrome. It may also be accompanied by anti-drug antibodies and tryptase levels. In this comprehensive review, we present the current views on cardiac toxicity and cardiovascular hypersensitivity, together with the reviewed cardiac literature on the chemotherapeutic agents inducing hypersensitivity reactions. Cardiac hypersensitivity seems to be the pathophysiologic basis of coronary artery spasm, acute coronary syndromes such as Kounis syndrome, and myocarditis caused by cancer therapy.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and Heart failure (HF) constitute two frequently coexisting cardiovascular diseases, with a great volume of the scientific research referring to strategies and guidelines associated with the best management of patients suffering from either of the two or both of these entities. The common pathophysiological paths, the adverse outcomes, the hospitalization rates, and the mortality rates that occur from various reports and trials indicate that a targeted therapy to the common background of these cardiovascular conditions may reverse the progression of their interrelating development. Among other optimal treatments concerning the prevalence of both AF and HF, the introduction of rhythm and rate control strategies in the guidelines has underlined the importance of sinus rhythm and heart rate control in the prevention of deleterious complications. The use of these strategies in the clinical practice has led to a debate about the superiority of rhythm versus rate control. The current guidelines as well as the published randomized trials and studies have not proved that rhythm control is more beneficial than the rate control treatments in the terms of survival, all-cause mortality, hospitalization rates, and quality of life. Therefore, the current therapeutic strategy is based on the therapy guidelines and the clinical judgment and experience. The aim of this review was to elucidate the endpoints of pharmacologic randomized clinical trials and the clinical data of each antiarrhythmic or rate-limiting medication, so as to promote their effective, individualized, evidence-based clinical use.

The most frequent cause of cardiac failure globally is ischemic heart disease, with chemothera-py-related cardiovascular side effects emerging as the second most frequent cause. Cancer therapy can result in acute cardiac events, such as coronary artery spasm, acute myocardial infarction, thromboembolism, myocarditis, bradycardia, tachyarrhythmias, atrio-ventricular blocks, QT pro-longation, torsades de pointes, pericardial effusion and hypotension, as well as chronic conditions, such as hypertension, systolic and diastolic left ventricular dysfunction presenting clinically as heart failure or cardiomyopathy. In cardio-oncology, when referring to cardiac toxicity and cardiovas-cular hypersensitivity, there is a great deal of misunderstanding. When a dose-related cardiovas-cular side effect continues even after the causative medication is stopped, it is referred to as cardi-otoxicity. A fibrotic response is the ultimate outcome of cardiac toxicity, which is defined as a dose-related cardiovascular adverse impact that lasts even after the causative treatment is stopped. Cardiotoxicity can occur after a single or brief exposure. On the other hand, the term cardiac or cardiovascular hypersensitivity describes an inflammatory reaction that is not dose-dependent, can occur at any point during therapy, even with very low medication dosages, and can show up as Kounis syndrome. It may also be accompanied by anti-drug antibodies and tryptase levels. In this comprehensive review, we present the current views on cardiac toxicity and cardiovascular hypersensitivity, together with the reviewed cardiac literature on the chemotherapeutic agents inducing hypersensitivity reactions. Cardiac hypersensitivity seems to be the pathophysiologic basis of coronary artery spasm, acute coronary syndromes such as Kounis syndrome and myocardi-tis caused by cancer therapy.