While advances in cancer treatment have led to improved survival rates, cancer survivors are at a significant risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).This review examines the risk, diagnosis, and prevention of ASCVD in this population.Cancer survivors, especially those diagnosed with certain types, face a significantly higher risk of developing ASCVD than the general population. We introduce the “triad model” to explain this increased risk of ASCVD among cancer patients. This model includes three interconnected components: common catalysts, cancer influence, and treatment impact.The factors contributing to this model are the shared risk factors between cancer and ASCVD, such as smoking, obesity, and systemic inflammation; the direct effects of cancer on cardiovascular health through chronic systemic inflammation and endothelial damage;and the significant effects of anticancer treatments, including chemotherapy and radiation, which can worsen cardiovascular complications and hasten the progression of ASCVD.Furthermore, cancer survivors are at a higher risk of developing and dying from ASCVD, highlighting the necessity for tailored guidelines and strategies for ASCVD prevention and management in this population. The review explores the utility of diagnostic tools, such as coronary artery calcium scoring, in predicting and managing ASCVD risk. It also emphasizes the importance of prevention strategies that include regular cardiovascular monitoring and lifestyle modifications. Finally, the relationship between cancer survival and cardiovascular health highlights the importance of integrated and comprehensive care approaches.Continued research, the development of prediction models, and specific preventative strategies are essential to improve cancer survivors’ overall health outcomes.

While advances in cancer treatment have led to improved survival rates, cancer survivors are at a significant risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).This review examines the risk, diagnosis, and prevention of ASCVD in this population.Cancer survivors, especially those diagnosed with certain types, face a significantly higher risk of developing ASCVD than the general population. We introduce the “triad model” to explain this increased risk of ASCVD among cancer patients. This model includes three interconnected components: common catalysts, cancer influence, and treatment impact.The factors contributing to this model are the shared risk factors between cancer and ASCVD, such as smoking, obesity, and systemic inflammation; the direct effects of cancer on cardiovascular health through chronic systemic inflammation and endothelial damage;and the significant effects of anticancer treatments, including chemotherapy and radiation, which can worsen cardiovascular complications and hasten the progression of ASCVD.Furthermore, cancer survivors are at a higher risk of developing and dying from ASCVD, highlighting the necessity for tailored guidelines and strategies for ASCVD prevention and management in this population. The review explores the utility of diagnostic tools, such as coronary artery calcium scoring, in predicting and managing ASCVD risk. It also emphasizes the importance of prevention strategies that include regular cardiovascular monitoring and lifestyle modifications. Finally, the relationship between cancer survival and cardiovascular health highlights the importance of integrated and comprehensive care approaches.Continued research, the development of prediction models, and specific preventative strategies are essential to improve cancer survivors’ overall health outcomes.

While advances in cancer treatment have led to improved survival rates, cancer survivors are at a significant risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).This review examines the risk, diagnosis, and prevention of ASCVD in this population.Cancer survivors, especially those diagnosed with certain types, face a significantly higher risk of developing ASCVD than the general population. We introduce the “triad model” to explain this increased risk of ASCVD among cancer patients. This model includes three interconnected components: common catalysts, cancer influence, and treatment impact.The factors contributing to this model are the shared risk factors between cancer and ASCVD, such as smoking, obesity, and systemic inflammation; the direct effects of cancer on cardiovascular health through chronic systemic inflammation and endothelial damage;and the significant effects of anticancer treatments, including chemotherapy and radiation, which can worsen cardiovascular complications and hasten the progression of ASCVD.Furthermore, cancer survivors are at a higher risk of developing and dying from ASCVD, highlighting the necessity for tailored guidelines and strategies for ASCVD prevention and management in this population. The review explores the utility of diagnostic tools, such as coronary artery calcium scoring, in predicting and managing ASCVD risk. It also emphasizes the importance of prevention strategies that include regular cardiovascular monitoring and lifestyle modifications. Finally, the relationship between cancer survival and cardiovascular health highlights the importance of integrated and comprehensive care approaches.Continued research, the development of prediction models, and specific preventative strategies are essential to improve cancer survivors’ overall health outcomes.

While advances in cancer treatment have led to improved survival rates, cancer survivors are at a significant risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).This review examines the risk, diagnosis, and prevention of ASCVD in this population.Cancer survivors, especially those diagnosed with certain types, face a significantly higher risk of developing ASCVD than the general population. We introduce the “triad model” to explain this increased risk of ASCVD among cancer patients. This model includes three interconnected components: common catalysts, cancer influence, and treatment impact.The factors contributing to this model are the shared risk factors between cancer and ASCVD, such as smoking, obesity, and systemic inflammation; the direct effects of cancer on cardiovascular health through chronic systemic inflammation and endothelial damage;and the significant effects of anticancer treatments, including chemotherapy and radiation, which can worsen cardiovascular complications and hasten the progression of ASCVD.Furthermore, cancer survivors are at a higher risk of developing and dying from ASCVD, highlighting the necessity for tailored guidelines and strategies for ASCVD prevention and management in this population. The review explores the utility of diagnostic tools, such as coronary artery calcium scoring, in predicting and managing ASCVD risk. It also emphasizes the importance of prevention strategies that include regular cardiovascular monitoring and lifestyle modifications. Finally, the relationship between cancer survival and cardiovascular health highlights the importance of integrated and comprehensive care approaches.Continued research, the development of prediction models, and specific preventative strategies are essential to improve cancer survivors’ overall health outcomes.

Cardio-oncology is a critical field due to the escalating significance of cardiovascular toxicity as a side effect of anti‑ cancer treatments. Cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) is a prevalent condition associated with car‑ diovascular toxicity, necessitating effective strategies for prediction, monitoring, management, and tracking. This comprehensive review examines the definition and risk stratification of CTRCD, explores monitoring approaches during anticancer therapy, and highlights specific cardiovascular toxicities linked to various cancer treatments. These include anthracyclines, HER2-targeted agents, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes therapies. Incorporating the Korean data, this review offers insights into the regional nuances in managing CTRCD. Using systematic follow-up incorporating cardiovascular imaging and biomarkers, a better understanding and management of CTRCD can be achieved, optimizing the cardiovascular health of both cancer patients and survivors.

Background: The rapid economic development of South Korea provides a unique model to study changes in the clinical characteristics, treatment approaches, and clinical outcomes of patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis (MS) relative to socioeconomic growth. Methods: From the Multicenter mitrAl STEnosis with Rheumatic etiology (MASTER) registry, 2,337 patients diagnosed with moderate or severe rheumatic MS between January 2001 and December 2020 were analyzed. Patients were grouped into consecutive 5-year intervals based on their year of diagnosis. Clinical characteristics, echocardiographic data, and clinical outcomes were assessed. Results: Over 20 years, the severity of mitral stenosis increased from 79.1% to 90.2%; similarly, the average age at diagnosis increased from 54.3 to 63.0 years (all P < 0.001). Comorbidities such as hypertension and atrial fibrillation increased (6.3% to 29.5% and 41.4% to 46.9%, respectively; all P for trend < 0.05). The rate of mitral intervention within five years after diagnosis increased from 31.2% to 47.4% (P for trend < 0.001). However, clinical outcomes of rheumatic mitral stenosis deteriorated over time in the composite outcomes (log-rank test, P < 0.001). Conversely, the incidence of stroke remained stable (60.6–73.7%; P < 0.001), which might be attributed to the increased use of anticoagulation therapy. Conclusion This study observed an increase in patient age, comorbidities, and valve disease severity as the country transitioned from a developing to developed status. Despite a rise in mitral valve interventions, clinical outcomes deteriorated over 20 years, highlighting the need for modified treatment approaches to improve patient outcomes.

Background and Objectives: Evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) for guidance during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is limited. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of ICE versus transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for guiding TAVR. Methods: This prospective cohort study included patients who underwent TAVR from August 18, 2015, to June 31, 2021. Eligible patients were stratified by echocardiographic modality (ICE or TEE) and anesthesia mode (monitored anesthesia care [MAC] or general anesthesia [GA]). Primary outcome was the 1-year composite of all-cause mortality, rehospitalization for cardiovascular cause, or stroke, according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) definition. Propensity score matching was performed, and study outcomes were analyzed for the matched cohorts. Results: Of the 359 eligible patients, 120 patients were matched for the ICE-MAC and TEEGA groups, respectively. The incidence of primary outcome was similar between matched groups (18.3% vs. 20.0%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53– 1.68; p=0.843). ICE-MAC and TEE-GA also had similar incidences of moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) (4.2% vs. 5.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.23– 2.82; p=0.758), new permanent pacemaker implantation, and VARC-3 types 2–4 bleeding. Conclusions ICE was comparable to TEE for guidance during TAVR for the composite clinical efficacy outcome, with similar incidences of moderate-to-severe PVR, new permanent pacemaker implantation, and major bleeding. These results suggest that ICE could be a safe and effective alternative echocardiographic modality to TEE for guiding TAVR.

Purpose: The number of patients presenting with vaccination-related cardiovascular symptoms after receiving mRNA vaccines (mRNA-VRCS) is increasing. We investigated the incidence of vaccine-related adverse events (VAEs), including myocarditis and pericarditis, in patients with mRNA-VRCS after receiving BNT162b2-Pfizer-BioNTech and mRNA-1273-Moderna vaccines. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected data on patients presenting with mRNA-VRCS who visited the outpatient clinic of two tertiary medical centers. Clinical characteristics, laboratory findings, echocardiographic findings, and electrocardiographic findings were evaluated. VAE was defined as myocarditis or pericarditis in patients after mRNA vaccination. Clinical outcomes during short-term follow-up, including emergency room (ER) visit, hospitalization, or death, were also assessed among the patients. Results: A total of 952 patients presenting with mRNA-VRCS were included in this study, with 89.7% receiving Pfizer-BioNTech and 10.3% receiving Moderna vaccines. The mean duration from vaccination to symptom was 5.6±7.5 days. VAEs, including acute myocarditis and acute pericarditis, were confirmed in 11 (1.2%) and 10 (1.1%) patients, respectively. The VAE group showed higher rates of dyspnea, echocardiography changes, and ST-T segment changes. During the short-term follow-up period of 3 months, the VAE group showed a higher hospitalization rate compared to the control group; there was no significant difference in ER visit (p=0.320) or mortality rates (p>0.999). Conclusion Amongst the patients who experienced mRNA-VRCS, the total incidence of VAEs, including acute myocarditis and pericarditis, was 2.2%. Patients with VAEs showed higher rates of dyspnea, echocardiographic changes, and ST-T segment changes compared to those without VAEs. With or without the cardiovascular events, the prognosis in patients with mRNA-VRCS was favorable.

Background: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) needs careful differentiation from other cardiomyopathies. Current guidelines recommend genetic testing, but genetic data on differential diagnoses and their relation with clinical outcomes in HCM are still lacking.This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of genetic variants and the proportion of other cardiomyopathies in patients with suspected HCM in Korea and compare the outcomes of HCM according to the presence of sarcomere gene mutation. Methods: We enrolled 1,554 patients with suspected HCM having left ventricular hypertrophy on transthoracic echocardiography between April 2012 and February 2023. Patients who declined genetic testing or who had pure apical HCM without a familial history were excluded. Genetic testing was performed using a next-generation sequencing panel or wholeexome sequencing for cardiomyopathies. We performed cardiovascular magnetic resonance if the diagnosis was inconclusive. Genotype-positive HCM was defined as sarcomere gene mutations of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. Adverse clinical outcomes were defined as a composite of all-cause death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure-related admission, appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks, and stroke. Results: Of 492 patients (mean age 49.6 ± 14.7 years, 29.4% women) who underwent genetic testing, 214 (43.5%) had disease-causing gene mutations. After combining gene tests, multi-imaging modality, and clinical information, 447 (90.9%) had HCM, and 27 (5.5%) had Fabry disease. Among the HCM patients, 182 (40.7%) were genotype-positive, and 265 (59.3%) were genotype-negative. Kaplan–Meier curve analysis showed that genotype-positive HCM patients experienced more composite outcomes (log-rank, P < 0.001). In multivariable Cox analysis, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17–3.12; P = 0.010), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% (HR, 5.50; 95% CI, 2.68–11.27; P < 0.001), LA reservoir strain (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93–0.99;P = 0.037), and positive sarcomere gene mutation (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.04–2.78; P = 0.034) were significantly association with composite outcomes. Sarcomere gene mutation had incremental value for predicting adverse outcomes added on NSVT and LVEF < 50%. Conclusion Genetic testing is helpful in diagnosing HCM, and sarcomere gene mutations in HCM are significantly associated with clinical outcomes.