Introduction Cardiovascular disease is the 2nd leading cause of long-term morbidity and mortality in cancer survivors. Cardio-oncology clinics (cocs) have emerged to address the issue; however, there is a paucity of data about the demographics and clinical outcomes of patients seen in the coc setting.Methods Cancer patients referred to The Ottawa Hospital coc were included in this retrospective observational study. Data collected were patient demographics, cancer type and stage, reason for referral, cardiac risk factors, cardiac assessments and treatment, and clinical outcomes.Results Between 2008 and 2015, 779 patients (516 women, 66%; 263 men, 34%) were referred to the coc. Median age of the patients at cancer diagnosis was 60 years (range: 18–90 years). The most frequent reasons for referral were decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (33%), pre-chemotherapy assessment (14%), and arrhythmia (14%). Treatment with cardiac medication was given in 322 patients (41%), 181 (56%) of whom received more than 2 cardiac medications, with 57 (18%) receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (acei), 46 (14%) receiving an acei and a beta-blocker, and 38 (12%) receiving a beta-blocker. Of 163 breast cancer patients, 129 (79%) were able to complete targeted therapy with coc co-management. Most of the 779 patients (n = 643, 83%) were alive at the time of the last data collection.Conclusions This cohort study is one of the largest to report characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients referred to a coc. Collaboration between oncologists and cardiologists resulted in completion of cancer therapy in most patients. Ongoing analysis of referral patterns, management plans, and patient outcomes will help to guide the cardiac care of oncology patients, ultimately optimizing cancer and cardiac outcomes alike.

No abstract

This study demonstrates the accuracy of crowdsourcing for systematic review citations screening, with retention of all eligible articles and a significant reduction in the work required from the investigative team. Together, these two findings suggest that crowdsourcing could represent a significant advancement in the area of systematic review. Future directions include further study to assess validity across medical fields and determination of the capacity of a non-medical crowd.