Background Small cell carcinoma is a highly aggressive and often fatal cancer that most commonly arises in the lung, although it can occasionally arise from other sites, such as the gastrointestinal tract, prostate or cervix. Cardiac involvement, however, is extremely uncommon and therefore has been poorly documented in the literature. Case presentation We describe a rare case of a 31-year-old male with small cell carcinoma presenting as a massive, 15-cm cardiac tumor invading the bilateral atria, interatrial septum, and pericardium without an apparent primary malignancy on PET CT and cardiac MRI. With extensive tissue necrosis, traditional methods of obtaining a right atrial endomyocardial biopsy via internal jugular venous access failed and a diagnosis was made via endoscopic ultrasound guided transesophageal fine needle aspiration of the left atrial mass. Due to the extensive tumor invasion, the patient was not a suitable candidate for surgical resection, debulking, or heart transplant. The patient was treated with etoposide, carboplatin, atezolizumab, and radiation therapy with initial monitoring in the intensive care unit due to concern that tumor lysis may cause rapid cardiac decompensation. Unfortunately, 4 months after chemoradiation therapy, the malignancy progressed and the patient passed away 6 months after the initial diagnosis. Conclusion We describe a rare occurrence of small cell carcinoma presenting as a massive cardiac tumor without apparent primary malignancy. This case demonstrates useful alternative diagnostic strategies and treatment considerations for patients presenting with a rare cardiac mass.

Introduction: Patients with left ventricular assist device (VAD) are typically treated with aspirin and warfarin. However, some patients are unable to tolerate full anticoagulation (AC). There is limited information available regarding intermediate-term outcomes in patients on reduced or no anticoagulation. Methods: Patients who underwent VAD implantation at California Pacific Medical Center from January 2015 to January 2020 were studied retrospectively. Patients received aspirin 81 mg daily and warfarin with a target INR of 2-3, and anticoagulation was gradually de-intensified or withdrawn in response to recurrent mucosal bleeding. Pre-implantation characteristics, thrombolytic events (hemolysis, pump thrombosis requiring exchange, TIA, or ischemic CVA), and survival post-implant were compared among patients treated with full AC vs. reduced or no AC. We performed nonparametric survival analysis to obtain Kaplan-Meier survival estimates as of 9/15/2020. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to adjust for confounders measured at baseline. Results: 91 patients underwent VAD implant (80 HeartMate 3 and 11 HeartMate II). The median age was 65, and the majority of patients (79%) were treated as destination therapy. Reduced AC was used in 43 patients (47%), including no anticoagulation (12 patients), aspirin monotherapy (2 patients), warfarin monotherapy (16), warfarin monotherapy with a reduced INR target (10), and aspirin plus warfarin with a reduced INR target (3). During a median follow-up of 22 months, 15 thrombotic events were observed (12 in the reduced AC group and 3 in the full AC group, P=0.19). Two patients underwent pump exchange. 67% of thrombotic events and both pump exchanges occurred in HMII recipients. Survival was similar in both groups (Figure). Conclusions: The use of a reduced or no anticoagulation strategy after VAD implant is not uncommon and is associated with acceptable outcomes, particularly among HeartMate 3 recipients.

No abstract

Background: High grade atrioventricular (AV) block (HGAVB) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (PPM) is a well-established complication, but recovery of intrinsic AV conduction is not well studied. We assessed the incidence and electrocardiography (ECG) predictors of AV conduction recovery after PPM implantation post-TAVR. Methods: In this multicenter, retrospective study, consecutive patients undergoing TAVR between January 2015 to February 2019 were identified. All patients requiring PPM for HGAVB within 30 days after TAVR were included. Follow up ECGs, PPM checks, and clinic notes were reviewed to determine AV conduction recovery, defined as no need for ventricular pacing. Results: There were 533 TAVR patients, 443 with balloon expandable valves (BEV) and 90 with self-expanding valves (SEV). 5.1% of patients (n=27) required PPM for HGAVB, including 4.5% (n=20) from BEV group and 7.8% (n=7) from SEV group. Right bundle branch block (RBBB) was the most common baseline ECG finding (n=19). Mean time to PPM implant was 3.3±4.5 days. 11 patients received leadless and 16 received conventional pacemakers. At 6 months, 65% (n=13) of BEV group and none of SEV group had AV conduction recovery. BEV patients without AV conduction recovery had significantly longer baseline PR intervals compared to those with recovery (248±85 msec vs 169±22 msec; 95% CI 12.5-147.2; p=0.024). There were no significant differences in baseline QRS duration or presence of RBBB between those with and without AV conduction recovery. Conclusion: AV conduction recovery is more frequent after PPM implantation in TAVR patients receiving BEV (65%) compared to SEV (0%). Normal baseline PR intervals at baseline is associated with higher rate of AV conduction recovery among BEV patients. Temporary pacing with leadless pacemakers may be an alternative to conventional pacemakers in BEV patients without baseline first degree AV block.

No abstract