ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Preoperative cardiovascular evaluation in patients with cancer.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery represent a uniquely high-risk group for perioperative cardiovascular complications. These individuals frequently exhibit coronary artery disease, peripheral arterial disease, cardiomyopathy, valvular dysfunction, arrhythmias, pericardial disease, and heightened thrombotic or bleeding risk. Many surgeries in this population are time-sensitive rather than elective, limiting opportunities for optimization and requiring clinicians to balance competing risks. Current guidelines provide limited oncology-specific recommendations; however, several strategies can improve outcomes. These include incorporating cancer history into risk stratification, lowering thresholds for transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and BNP screening in patients at risk for cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD), performing ECG in those at risk for QTc prolongation, and extending thromboprophylaxis for 4-5 weeks after major surgery. Multidisciplinary collaboration remains essential. Preoperative evaluation should integrate patient- and procedure-related risks, avoiding unnecessary testing in low-risk surgeries or patients with good functional capacity. Functional capacity assessment using METs or validated tools such as the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI), ECG, biomarkers, and surgical risk calculators (e.g., RCRI, ACS NSQIP) guide decision-making. Coronary revascularization should follow standard indications, such as significant left main or multivessel disease, rather than routine prophylactic intervention, as demonstrated by trials like CARP and reinforced by registry data in high-risk anatomy. Antithrombotic management, including continuation of aspirin, selective use of dual antiplatelet therapy, and bridging strategies with cangrelor or heparin in high-risk patients, further influences perioperative outcomes. By combining guideline-directed care with oncology-specific considerations, clinicians can optimize surgical safety and reduce cardiovascular complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.