MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Characteristics, management, and outcome of patients with acute coronary syndromes and cancer: Insights from the EYESHOT-2 registry

2025· article· en· W4412805847 on OpenAlexaff
Antonio Greco, Isabella Bisceglia, Maria Laura Canale, Pietro Ameri, Lucio Gonzini, Fortunato Scotto di Uccio, Serafina Valente, Sergio Leonardi, Aldo P. Maggioni, Michele Massimo Gulizia, Furio Colivicchi, Domenico Gabrielli, Fabrizio Oliva, Leonardo De Luca

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal Supplements · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity and mitigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOutcome (game theory)Intensive care medicineCancerAcute coronary syndromeInternal medicineCardiologyEmergency medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background An increasing proportion of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) presents with concomitant active or recent cancer (1). The contemporary in-hospital management and outcome of these patients have been poorly investigated (2-6). Purpose to compare the characteristics, management and outcome of ACS patients with and without cancer enrolled in the EYESHOT-2 registry (7). Methods The EYESHOT-2 was an observational, nationwide study conducted over a 4-week period (February 1st-29th, 2024) in 183 Italian coronary care units. In the present analysis, the 2806 consecutive ACS patients enrolled, were divided into 3 groups: - active cancer or history of cancer < 2 years (cancer group); - previous cancer >2 years (previous cancer group); no cancer in history (no cancer group). Results There were 98 patients with cancer (3.5%), 135 patients with previous cancer (4.8%), and 2564 patients with no history of cancer (91.4%). The "cancer" group was older and had comparable cardiovascular risk profiles and comorbidities to the other patients (Table 1). Of the 98 patients with active cancer, 85.3% had a solid tumor and 14.7% had a hematologic tumor. In addition, 32.6% of patients with active cancer had stage IV disease, and 60% were treated with pharmacologic therapy, 30% with surgery, and 7.1% with radiotherapy. The most commonly used oncological drug was androgen deprivation therapy (15.2%), followed by endocrine therapy (12.1%). Among STEMI patients, a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed in 94%, 97% and 96% of patients without, with previous and with cancer, respectively (p=0.7), with a median time between hospital arrival and coronary angiography of 3.6 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.5-2.2)(no cancer), 3 (IQR 0.4-1.9) (previous cancer), 8 (IQR 0.4-2.4) hours (cancer) (p= 0.6). In NSTEMI, a PCI was performed in 73%, 74% and 70% of patients without, with previous and with active cancer, respectively (p=0.9); the median time between hospital arrival and coronary angiography was 37 (IQR 10-45) (no cancer), 40 (IQR 11-52) (previous cancer) and 53 (IQR 13-52) hours (cancer) (p= 0.2). In both STEMI and NSTEMI settings, all-cause in-hospital mortality and major bleeding rates were comparable between the 3 groups (Table 1). Conclusion Differently from previous findings of the literature, in the present analysis of a contemporary, nationwide registry of ACS we find no difference in the characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with and without cancer.Table 1

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal SupplementsSame topicChemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity and mitigationFrench-language works237,207