Due to the aging of the populations of developed countries and a common occurrence of risk factors, it is increasingly probable that a patient may have both cancer and cardiovascular disease. In addition, cytotoxic agents and targeted therapies used to treat cancer, including classic chemotherapeutic agents, monoclonal antibodies that target tyrosine kinase receptors, small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and even antiangiogenic drugs and chemoprevention agents such as cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, all affect the cardiovascular system. One of the reasons is that many agents reach targets in the microenvironment and do not affect only the tumor. Combination therapy often amplifies cardiotoxicity, and radiotherapy can also cause heart problems, particularly when combined with chemotherapy. In the past, cardiotoxic risk was less evident, but it is increasingly an issue, particularly with combination therapy and adjuvant therapy. Today's oncologists must be fully aware of cardiovascular risks to avoid or prevent adverse cardiovascular effects, and cardiologists must now be ready to assist oncologists by performing evaluations relevant to the choice of therapy. There is a need for cooperation between these two areas and for the development of a novel discipline, which could be termed cardio-oncology or onco-cardiology. Here, we summarize the potential cardiovascular toxicities for a range of cancer chemotherapeutic and chemopreventive agents and emphasize the importance of evaluating cardiovascular risk when patients enter into trials and the need to develop guidelines that include collateral effects on the cardiovascular system. We also discuss mechanistic pathways and describe several potential protective agents that could be administered to patients with occult or overt risk for cardiovascular complications.

Background: Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease and has a dismal prognosis without surgical treatment. The aim of this meta‐analysis was to quantitatively assess the comparative effectiveness of the Perceval (LivaNova) valve versus conventional aortic bioprostheses. Methods and Results: A total of 6 comparative studies were identified, including 639 and 760 patients who underwent, respectively, aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless valve (P group) and with a conventional bioprosthesis (C group). Aortic cross‐clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass duration were significantly lower in the P group. No difference in postoperative mortality was shown for the P and C groups (2.8% versus 2.7%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 0.99 [95% confidence interval ( CI ), 0.52–1.88]; P =0.98). Incidence of postoperative renal failure was lower in the P group compared with the C group (2.7% versus 5.5%; OR: 0.45 [95% CI , 0.25–0.80]; P =0.007). Incidence of stroke (2.3% versus 1.7%; OR: 1.34 [95% CI , 0.56–3.21]; P =0.51) and paravalvular leak (3.1% versus 1.6%; OR : 2.52 [95% CI , 0.60–1.06]; P =0.21) was similar, whereas P group patients received fewer blood transfusions than C group patients (1.16±1.2 versus 2.13±2.2; mean difference: 0.99 [95% CI , −1.22 to −0.75]; P =0.001). The incidence of pacemaker implantation was higher in the P than the C group (7.9% versus 3.1%; OR : 2.45 [95% CI , 1.44–4.17]; P =0.001), whereas hemodynamic Perceval performance was better (transvalvular gradient 23.42±1.73 versus 22.8±1.86; mean difference: 0.90 [95% CI , 0.62–1.18]; P =0.001), even during follow‐up (10.98±5.7 versus 13.06±6.2; mean difference: −2.08 [95% CI , −3.96 to −0.21]; P =0.030). We found no difference in 1‐year mortality. Conclusions: The Perceval bioprosthesis improves the postoperative course compared with conventional bioprostheses and is an option for high‐risk patients.

Background: Despite left ventricular (LV) dysfunction contributing to mortality in chronic heart failure (HF), the molecular mechanisms of LV failure continues to remain poorly understood and myocardial biomarkers have yet to be identified. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate specific transcriptome changes occurring in cardiac tissues of patients with HF compared to healthy condition patients to improve diagnosis and possible treatment of affected subjects. Methods: Unlike other studies, only dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) (n = 2) and restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM) (n = 2) patients who did not report family history of the disease were selected with the aim of obtaining a homogeneous population for the study. The transcriptome of all patients were studied by RNA-sequencing (RNA-Seq) and the read counts were adequately filtered and normalized using a recently developed user-friendly tool for RNA-Seq data analysis, based on a new Graphical User Interface (RNA-SeqGUI). Results: By using this approach in a pairwise comparison with healthy donors, we were able to identify DCM- and RCM-specific expression signatures for protein-coding genes as well as for long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs). Differential expression of 5 genes encoding different members of the mediator complex was disclosed in this analysis. Interestingly, a significant alteration was found for genes which had never been associated with HF until now, and 27 lncRNA/mRNA pairs that were significantly altered in HF patients. Conclusions: The present findings revealed specific expression pattern of both protein-coding and lncRNAs in HF patients, confirming that new LV myocardial biomarkers could be reliably identified using Next-Generation Sequencing-based approaches. Background: Despite left ventricular (LV) dysfunction contributing to mortality in chronic heart failure (HF), the molecular mechanisms of LV failure continues to remain poorly understood and myocardial biomarkers have yet to be identified. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate specific transcriptome changes occurring in cardiac tissues of patients with HF compared to healthy condition patients to improve diagnosis and possible treatment of affected subjects. Methods: Unlike other studies, only dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) (n = 2) and restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM) (n = 2) patients who did not report family history of the disease were selected with the aim of obtaining a homogeneous population for the study. The transcriptome of all patients were studied by RNA-sequencing (RNA-Seq) and the read counts were adequately filtered and normalized using a recently developed user-friendly tool for RNA-Seq data analysis, based on a new Graphical User Interface (RNA-SeqGUI). Results: By using this approach in a pairwise comparison with healthy donors, we were able to identify DCM- and RCM-specific expression signatures for protein-coding genes as well as for long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs). Differential expression of 5 genes encoding different members of the mediator complex was disclosed in this analysis. Interestingly, a significant alteration was found for genes which had never been associated with HF until now, and 27 lncRNA/mRNA pairs that were significantly altered in HF patients. Conclusions: The present findings revealed specific expression pattern of both protein-coding and lncRNAs in HF patients, confirming that new LV myocardial biomarkers could be reliably identified using Next-Generation Sequencing-based approaches.