Serum biomarkers are an important tool in the baseline risk assessment and diagnosis of cardiovascular disease in cancer patients receiving cardiotoxic cancer treatments. Increases in cardiac biomarkers including cardiac troponin and natriuretic peptides can be used to guide initiation of cardioprotective treatments for cancer patients during treatment and to monitor the response to cardioprotective treatments, and they also offer prognostic value. This position statement examines the role of cardiac biomarkers in the management of cancer patients. The Cardio-Oncology Study Group of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) in collaboration with the Cardio-Oncology Council of the ESC have evaluated the current evidence for the role of cardiovascular biomarkers in cancer patients before, during and after cardiotoxic cancer therapies. The characteristics of the main two biomarkers troponin and natriuretic peptides are discussed, the link to the mechanisms of cardiovascular toxicity, and the evidence for their clinical use in surveillance during and after anthracycline chemotherapy, trastuzumab and HER2-targeted therapies, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, proteasome inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, cyclophosphamide and radiotherapy. Novel surveillance clinical pathways integrating cardiac biomarkers for cancer patients receiving anthracycline chemotherapy or trastuzumab biomarkers are presented and future direction in cardio-oncology biomarker research is discussed.

Cancer and heart failure (HF) are common medical conditions with a steadily rising prevalence in industrialized countries, particularly in the elderly, and they both potentially carry a poor prognosis. A new diagnosis of malignancy in subjects with pre-existing HF is not infrequent, and challenges HF specialists as well as oncologists with complex questions relating to both HF and cancer management. An increased incidence of cancer in patients with established HF has also been suggested. This review paper summarizes the epidemiology and the prognostic implications of cancer occurrence in HF, the impact of pre-existing HF on cancer treatment decisions and the impact of cancer on HF therapeutic options, while providing some practical suggestions regarding patient care and highlighting gaps in knowledge.

To compare two different clopidogrel regimens on the outcomes of patients undergoing elective coronary angiography (CAG)±ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Open-trial randomized 1028 patients with stable angina to group A (‘non-selective’—clopidogrel 600 mg >6 h before CAG; n = 513) or group B (‘selective’—clopidogrel 600 mg in the cath-lab after CAG, only in case of PCI; n = 515). Combined primary endpoint was death/periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI)/stroke/re-intervention within 7 days. Secondary endpoints were troponin elevation and bleeding complications. Primary endpoint occurred in 0.8% group A patients vs. 1% group B (P = 0.749; 90% CI for the percentage difference −1.2–0.8). Periprocedural troponin elevation (>3× ULN) was detected in 2.6% group A vs. 3.3% group B (P = 0.475; 90% CI −2.5–1.0). Bleeding complications occurred in 3.5% group A patients vs. 1.4% group B (P = 0.025). After adjustment for covariates and factors that may influence the bleeding risk, patients in group A were shown to have more likely bleeding complications when compared with group B (OR = 3.03; 95% CI 1.14–8.10; P = 0.027). High (600 mg) loading dose of clopidogrel before elective CAG increased the risk of minor bleeding complications, while the benefit on periprocedural infarction was not significant. Clopidogrel can be given safely in the catheterization laboratory between CAG and PCI in chronic stable angina patients.

Background: The outcome of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated with cardiogenic shock is poor. The aim of this study was to analyse, whether upfront abciximab administration could improve the outcomes of cardiogenic shock. Methods: This multicentre open trial randomized 80 patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock expected to undergo primary PCI into group A (routine upfront—pre-procedural—abciximab bolus followed by 12-h abciximab infusion) and group B (standard therapy). The study primary objective was 30-day combined outcome (death/reinfarction/stroke/new severe renal failure). Results: PCI was technically successful in 90% (A) versus 87.5% (B) patients. Abciximab was used in 100% (A) versus 35% (B). The primary endpoint occurred in 17 group A patients (42.5%) and 11 group B patients (27.5%, P = 0.24). Ejection fraction among survivors after 30 days was 44 ± 11% (A) versus 41 ± 12% (B, P = 0.205). Major bleeding occurred in 17.5% (A) versus 7.5% (B, P = 0.310). No differences (A versus B) were found in TIMI-flow and MBG after PCI. Conclusions: This study did not show any benefit from routine pre-procedural abciximab when compared with a selective abciximab use during the intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing primary PCI. However, small sample size of the trial preclude any definitive conclusion, a larger prospective, randomized, multicentered trial is needed.