Loading
Cardiac Tumors and Thrombi / Chemotherapy-induced Cardiotoxicity and Mitigation · Journal article
European Heart Journal - Valvular and Structural Heart Disease · September 10, 2026
A consensus or society position rather than new primary data.
This is a multidisciplinary consensus position paper offering evidence-based recommendations for managing severe valvular heart disease in patients with active cancer. It emphasizes individualized risk stratification, timing of intervention to avoid oncology delays (<4 weeks), and preferential use of percutaneous over surgical approaches where anatomically feasible, while acknowledging that surgical intervention remains necessary in selected cases.
Journal article. Patients with co-existing severe valvular heart disease and active cancer.
Percutaneous interventions should be favoured when feasible to minimize oncologic delays (<4 weeks) Conservative approach should be discussed insofar as it does not limit access to optimal oncology care Surgical approaches remain essential in select cases with anatomical contraindications
No original efficacy or safety data provided; source aggregates existing evidence without quantifying it
Clinicians managing this population should consider percutaneous interventions as first-line when feasible to avoid delays in cancer treatment, while remaining prepared to offer surgical approaches in anatomically complex cases. Risk stratification incorporating chemotherapy and targeted therapy cardiotoxicity is advocated as essential to individualised decision-making.
A multidisciplinary consensus position paper providing evidence-based suggestions for managing severe valvular heart disease in active cancer patients, without reporting original trial data.
As stated by the source record.
Quoted from the source exactly as published.
Clinicians managing this population should consider percutaneous interventions as first-line when feasible to avoid delays in cancer treatment, while remaining prepared to offer surgical approaches in anatomically complex cases. Risk stratification incorporating chemotherapy and targeted therapy cardiotoxicity is advocated as essential to individualised decision-making.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
Abstract The co-existence of valvular heart disease (VHD) and active cancer presents a unique clinical challenge, necessitating an individualized multidisciplinary strategy to balance oncologic treatment urgency with cardiovascular risk. The indication, optimal timing and modality of VHD intervention in patients with active cancer remain unclear, particularly given the risks of cancer treatment-related cardiac dysfunction, perioperative complications, delays in oncologic therapy and the cancer prognosis. This multidisciplinary position paper aims to provide evidence-based suggestions on the management of severe VHD in active cancer patients, focusing on 1) Risk stratification of VHD in cancer patients, including the impact of chemotherapies, targeted therapies and non-cardiac surgery, 2) Indication and timing considerations for cardiac intervention to minimize oncologic treatment delays, and 3) Comparison of surgical versus percutaneous interventions, highlighting patient selection criteria. A conservative approach should be discussed insofar as it does not limit access to optimal oncology care. Percutaneous interventions should be favoured when feasible to minimize oncologic delays (<4 weeks), while surgical approaches remain essential in select cases with anatomical contraindications. Future research should focus on prospective studies.
Taken from the source record, never inferred. Follow any of these and new work involving them reaches your briefing.