Next Article in Journal
Unsupervised Hierarchical Clustering of Head and Neck Cancer Patients by Pre-Treatment Plasma Metabolomics Creates Prognostic Metabolic Subtypes
Next Article in Special Issue
Impact of Center Volume on Cardiopulmonary and Mortality Outcomes after Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors for Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Could Oxidative Stress Play a Role in the Development and Clinical Management of Differentiated Thyroid Cancer?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/cancers15123183
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Survival Benefit of Renin-Angiotensin System Blockers in Critically Ill Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Study

by
Driss Laghlam
1,2,
Anis Chaba
1,
Matthias Tarneaud
1,
Julien Charpentier
1,
Jean-Paul Mira
1,2,3,
Frédéric Pène
1,2,3 and
Clara Vigneron
1,2,*
1
Service de Médecine Intensive-Réanimation, Hôpital Cochin, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Centre—Université Paris Cité, 75014 Paris, France
2
Université Paris Cité, 75014 Paris, France
3
Inserm U1016, CNRS UMR8104, Institut Cochin, 75014 Paris, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2023, 15(12), 3183; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15123183
Submission received: 28 April 2023 / Revised: 8 June 2023 / Accepted: 13 June 2023 / Published: 14 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Oncologic Emergencies: The Emergency Care of Cancer Patients)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The involvement of the renin-angiotensin pathway in both the regulation of the cardiovascular system and in tumorigenesis raises the question of the prognostic impact of renin-angiotensin system blockers (RABs) in cancer patients experiencing life-threatening complications. The aim of our retrospective study was to assess this impact in solid tumor patients requiring unplanned ICU admission over a 14-year period. Among 1845 patients mainly diagnosed with gastrointestinal and lung cancers, 414 (22.4%) were treated with RABs: 220 (53.1%) with angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and 194 (46.9%) with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis). ARBs use and ACEis use were both associated with improved in-ICU survival, whereas only ARBs use was associated with improved one-year survival.

Abstract

Increasing evidence argues for the promotion of tumorigenesis through activation of the renin-angiotensin system pathway. Accordingly, a benefit of renin-angiotensin system blockers (RABs) treatments has been suggested in patients with solid cancers in terms of survival. We aimed to evaluate in-ICU survival and one-year survival in cancer patients admitted to the ICU with respect to the use of RABs. We conducted a retrospective observational single-center study in a 24-bed medical ICU. We included all solid cancer patients (age ≥ 18 years) requiring unplanned ICU admission. From 2007 to 2020, 1845 patients with solid malignancies were admitted (median age 67 years (59–75), males 61.7%). The most frequent primary tumor sites were the gastrointestinal tract (26.8%), the lung (24.7%), the urological tract (20.1%), and gynecologic and breast cancers (13.9%). RABs were used in 414 patients, distributed into 220 (53.1%) with angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and 194 (46.9%) with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis). After multivariate adjustment, ARBs use (OR = 0.62, 95%CI (0.40–0.92), p = 0.03) and ACEis use (OR = 0.52, 95%CI (0.32–0.82), p = 0.006) were both associated with improved in-ICU survival. Treatment with ARBs was independently associated with decreased one-year mortality (OR = 0.6, 95%CI (0.4–0.9), p = 0.02), whereas treatment with ACEis was not. In conclusion, this study argues for a beneficial impact of RABs use on the prognosis of critically ill cancer patients.

1. Introduction

Renin-angiotensin blockers (RABs), namely angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis), are well known for their cardiovascular protective properties. The impact of pre-admission RABs on the outcome of critically ill patients remains controversial. RABs may theoretically worsen hemodynamic and renal failures, but the requirements for vasopressors of RAB-treated septic patients were not modified compared to septic patients without anti-hypertensive medication or patients treated with beta-blockers or calcium channel blockers [1]. Hence, prior use of RABs did not result in increased mortality [2] and, conversely, likely improved survival in general intensive care unit (ICU) populations [3,4]. In ICU survivors who experienced acute kidney injury, RABs prescription after ICU discharge was associated with a decrease in one-year mortality [5], possibly linked to reduced incidence of major cardiac adverse events [6]. In a recent study by Angriman et al. reporting the outcomes of 7174 sepsis survivors, a new treatment with RABs within 30 days of hospital discharge was associated with a reduction in major cardiovascular events (i.e., myocardial infarction, stroke) compared to new users of a calcium channel blocker or a thiazide diuretic [7]. Besides, there is increasing evidence that the renin-angiotensin system pathway may drive malignant tumor progression through inhibition of apoptosis associated with enhanced tumor proliferation, cell migration, tissue invasion, and angiogenesis [8].
Patients with cancer account for a growing proportion of ICU admissions as one in eight patients admitted to the ICU has a solid tumor, as reported in a multicenter observational study including 3147 patients from 24 European countries [9]. An international study performed in 84 countries described that 12.1% of critically ill patients had a history of solid cancer [10]. The lifetime probability of being diagnosed with invasive cancer is slightly higher for men (40.2%) than for women (38.5%), reflecting life expectancy as well as cancer risk [11]. It is the leading cause of death among women aged 40 to 79 years and men aged 60 to 79 years in the United States [11]. Besides the stage of malignancy, comorbidities play an important role in the prognosis of cancer patients. Hypertension, sometimes linked to side effects of antitumoral treatment (particularly anti-VEGF agents) [12], is the more frequent non-malignant comorbid condition in patients with cancer, affecting 38% of these individuals [13]. Recent hypertension practice guidelines published in 2020 recommend RABs as a first-line treatment [14]. Hence, a survival benefit of renin-angiotensin system blockers treatments has been suggested in patients with solid cancers [15,16,17], through reduction in cancer treatment–related adverse events, such as chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity, arterial hypertension and radiation injury [18,19], or possibly through inhibition of tumorigenesis [8].
The involvement of the renin-angiotensin pathway in both the regulation of the cardiovascular system and in oncogenesis raises the question of the prognostic impact of RABs in cancer patients experiencing life-threatening complications. The objective of the present study was to address the impact of RABs treatments on short-term and long-term outcomes in patients with solid malignancies requiring ICU admission.

2. Materials and Methods

In this single-center retrospective study in a 24-bed medical ICU, we enrolled all adult patients (age ≥18 years) with a diagnosis of solid neoplasm (before or during the ICU stay) requiring unplanned admission from January 2007 to December 2020. Exclusion criteria were cancer cured for more than 5 years, planned admissions after elective surgery, and admissions for securing a procedure. Data were extracted from the patients’ data management system (Clinisoft®, GE Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA) and computed from the individual medical file. We collected the following data: demographic characteristics (age, sex), comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis, chronic renal failure, chronic dialysis, chronic respiratory failure, ischemic cardiopathy, chronic heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, and stroke), and prior chronic medications including ACEis and ARBs. Concerning the underlying malignancy, the date of diagnosis, primary tumor site (lung, breast, gastrointestinal, urologic, skin, gynecologic, head and neck, others), cancer stage (localized, advanced, metastatic), status of response to treatment (newly diagnosed, partial remission, complete remission, progression), and recent oncological treatment within the last 3 months (surgery or chemotherapy) were recorded. Regarding the ICU stay, we recorded admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score [20] and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II [21], organ failure supports (invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, vasopressors/inotropes, and renal replacement therapy), and decisions to forgo life-sustaining therapies (DFLSTs). Missing data were handled using the Random Forest method. Admissions directly linked to the underlying malignancy were classified as cancer-specific complications [22]. The main outcomes were in-ICU and in-hospital survival in the whole cohort and one-year survival in ICU survivors with complete follow-up.
Variables were reported as absolute value with count and percentage for categorical variables or median with interquartile range for quantitative variables. Univariate analyses were performed using the χ2 or Fisher exact test, and the non-parametric Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests, as appropriate. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. Multivariate models used a conditional backward stepwise variable selection process based upon variable influence in univariate analysis. Critical entry and exit p values were 0.2 and 0.1, respectively. Logistic regression was performed to identify the possible factors involved in ICU and one-year mortality. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were performed to illustrate data found in the logistic regression. Correlation and interaction were checked within final models. Therefore, DSFLTs were excluded from the ICU mortality model due to a significant interaction with SAPS2 score. We also explored the impact of RABs on one-year mortality, with a propensity score weighting in ICU survivors. Variables included for the propensity score models were age, cancer status and stage, gender, hypertension, diabetes, chronic renal insufficiency, lung cancer. Statistical significance was considered using two-sided tests with a critical alpha risk of 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.2.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing), “survival”, “survey”, “WeightIt”, and “PSweight” packages.
According to French regulations, this study was approved by the ethics committee of the French Intensive Care Society (Société de Réanimation de Langue Française, CE SRLF #17-03), which waived the need for signed consent.

3. Results

3.1. Baseline Characteristics

From 2007 to 2020, 1845 patients with underlying solid neoplasms were admitted to the ICU. Baseline characteristics of the whole cohort are displayed in Table 1. The median age was 67 years (59–75) and 61.7% were men. The most frequent primary tumor sites were the gastrointestinal tract (n = 494, 26.8%), lung (n = 456, 24.7%), the urological tract (n = 371, 20.1%), and gynecologic and breast cancers (n = 256, 13.9%). Malignancy was at metastatic stage in 476 patients (49.2%). Features at ICU admission and outcomes are displayed in Table 2. The median SOFA score at ICU admission was five points (4–7). The main cause of admission was infection (n = 650, 35.2%), followed by specific complications directly linked to the underlying malignancy (n = 488, 26.4%). Of the patients, 959 (51.9%) required invasive mechanical ventilation, 632 (34.2%) vasopressor/inotrope support, and 303 (16.4%) renal replacement therapy. Life-supporting therapies were withheld or withdrawn in 529 (28.6%) patients. The in-ICU, in-hospital, and one-year mortality rates were 22.1%, 41.7%, and 66.6%, respectively.
RABs were used in 414 patients, including 220 (53.1%) with ARBs and 194 (46.9%) with ACEis. RABs users were older (72 (65–78) vs. 66 (57–74) years, p < 0.001) and more frequently had diabetes (155 (37.4%) vs. 197 (13.8%), p < 0.001), chronic renal failure (65 (15.7%) vs. 100 (7.0%), p < 0.001) and chronic heart failure defined as left ventricular ejection fraction <50% (45 (10.9%) vs. 43 (3.0%), p = 0.04). With regard to cancer status, RABs users less frequently had metastatic malignancies or progression under treatment (respectively, 195 (47.1%) vs. 809 (56.5%), p = 0.001 and 114 (27.5%) vs. 532 (37.2%) p = 0.006). RABs users were more often admitted for acute renal failure (41 (9.9%) vs. 97 (6.8%), p = 0.043) and less often for a specific complication (80 (19.3%) vs. 408 (28.5%), p < 0.001).

3.2. ICU Mortality

Thirty-day survival curves according to the use of ARBs or ACEis are displayed in Figure 1 (log-rank, p = 0.074). After adjustment in a multivariate model, ARBs use (OR = 0.62, 95%CI (0.40–0.92), p = 0.03) and ACEis use (OR = 0.52, 95%CI (0.32–0.82), p = 0.006) were both associated with improved in-ICU survival (Figure 2, Panel A). Other independent determinants of in-ICU mortality were as follows: SAPS2 score, lung cancer, metastatic stage, newly diagnosed status, and cancer progression under treatment.

3.3. In-Hospital Mortality

In-hospital mortality rates in no-RABs patients, ARBs users, and ACEis users were 42.8%, 35.5% and 38.3%, respectively (p = 0.09). In multivariate analysis, ARBs use was independently associated with decreased in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.65, 95%CI (0.44–0.97), p = 0.04) while ACEis use nearly reached significance (OR = 0.66, 95%CI (0.44–1.00), p = 0.06) (Figure 2, Panel B).

3.4. One-Year Mortality

Based on a logistic regression analysis among ICU survivors, chronic arterial hypertension (OR = 1.9, 95%CI (1.4–2.7), p < 0.001) and ARBs use (OR = 0.56, 95%CI (0.35–0.90), p = 0.02) were independently associated with one-year mortality but not ACEis use (OR = 0.81, 95%CI (0.5–1.3), p = 0.4) (Figure 2, Panel C). Other independent determinants of one-year mortality were as follows: decision to forgo life-sustaining therapy during ICU stay, lung cancer, SAPS2, newly diagnosed status, partial remission status, cancer in progression under treatment, advanced stage, metastatic stage, and specific cancer-related complications.
In order to fully explore the effects of ARBs use on one-year mortality, we performed a propensity score matching (using overlap weighting) based on ARBs use in the whole cohort (excluding ACEis users). After weighting, both groups and propensity scores were adequately balanced (Supplemental Figure S1). One-year survival curves in the propensity-score matched cohorts of patients, treated or not with ARBs, are displayed in Figure 3. Compared to the patients without RABs, the patients with ARBs exhibited decreased one-year mortality (117/220 (60.0%) vs. 863/1431 (67.5%), p = 0.046).

4. Discussion

In this large cohort of cancer patients, we found that RABs users had an improved survival in the ICU. Although this association was observed after multivariate analysis, patients treated with RABs more frequently experienced rapidly reversible organ failures (i.e., renal failure) and were less hospitalized because of specific complications directly linked to the underlying malignancy.
Concerning long-term outcome, ARBs users had improved one-year survival. Of note, although hypertension was associated with a worse prognosis, ARBs users had a better one-year survival, suggesting a specific effect of this medication. Our findings align with recent clinical studies reporting improved prognosis in cancer patients treated with RABs as adjunctive therapy [15,23,24]. Interestingly, this benefit of using ARBs appears even in cancer patients who underwent an unplanned admission in ICU, constituting a specific population not previously described. Furthermore, improved survival was noted in a cohort of patients with various cancers, mainly gastrointestinal, urologic, lung, and breast cancers as previously describe [15,25,26,27].
The effects of RABs in cancer patients remain elusive because observational studies yield conflicting results. The meta-analyses and retrospective studies may have inherent bias as they were never designed to explore any pro- or antitumoral effects and included heterogeneous patients with various cancers at different stages. However, the accumulation of evidence of an improved survival linked to their plausible impact on tumorigenesis pathways, and the absence of significant side effects of these widely prescribed low-cost drugs, make the use of RABs possibly interesting in this population. Most importantly, the renin-angiotensin system consists of two main axes that function in opposition to each other. There is increasing evidence that activation of the classical renin-angiotensin system pathway through Angiotensin II-angiotensin-1-receptor (AT1R) drives tumor progression through enhanced tumor proliferation, migration, invasion and angiogenesis, as well as inhibition of apoptosis. In contrast, the Angiotensin (1,7)-Mas receptor and the Angiotensin II-AT2R pathways are thought to antagonize many of the cellular actions of the Angiotensin II-AT1R axis [8,28]. In detail, angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and neprilysin (NEP) are part of this pathway with opposite physiological effects. ACE2 and NEP can cleave Angiotensin II to produce angiotensin 1–7 which binds to Mas receptor, while ACE2 cleaves Angiotensin I to generate angiotensin 1–9 which activates AT2R pathway, mediating antiproliferative effects [29]. The specific anti-tumorigenesis effects of ACEis and ARBs are not well known. Both may exert their effect via inhibition of angiotensin II production and therefore by blocking the angiotensin II-AT1R pathway. Furthermore, with ACEis, ACE2 production of Angiotensin (1–9) is forced, activating the AT2R pathway. With ARBs, the circulating angiotensin II can be turned to Angiotensin (1–7) by the available ACE2, mediating antiproliferative effect. However, there are still many questions about the cellular mechanisms involved in the effects of these two molecules. In details, Angiotensin II was found to enhance tumor growth by increasing production of tumor-promoting macrophages [30]. Conversely, blockade of the renin-angiotensin system by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors was associated with an increased expression of genes linked with the activity of T cells and antigen-presenting cells, and a longer survival independently of chemotherapy [31]. In ovarian cancer models, RABs (losartan) use normalizes tumor microenvironment via its antifibrotic effects, and through this improves vessel perfusion and drug delivery, enhancing chemotherapy efficacy [32]. Regarding clinical investigations, in a recent retrospective study, patients with hypertension who were concomitantly taking RABs during immune checkpoint inhibitors therapy had better overall survival, especially for those with gastrointestinal and genitourinary cancers, without any significant change regarding immune related adverse events [15]. The effects of RABs on survival could be driven by mitigating cancer-treatment-related adverse events, on top of inhibition of tumor growth and recurrence, as described in breast cancers in which RABs decrease the cardiotoxicity in patients treated with trastuzumab or anthracycline-containing regiment [19,33,34]. In our study, it is noteworthy that RABs users, compared to non-RABs users, displayed different baseline cancer characteristics with less advanced malignancies, which could affect long-term prognosis. Nevertheless, we used a propensity-score matching method to compare these patients.
We did not retrieve any association between use of ACEis and one-year mortality in this specific population. These observations were consistent with other studies as the effects of ACEis in cancer risk and survival are still debated [25,35]. In 2018, Hicks et al. found that long-term use of ACEis was specifically associated to an increased risk of lung cancer compared to ARBs in a population base cohort study of 992,061 patients newly treated with antihypertensive drugs [36]. This association could be linked to an accumulation of bradykinin, stimulating tumor cells proliferation and increasing vascular permeability, therefore facilitating a greater supply of nutrients and oxygen to the tumor cells [37]. Moreover, substance P induces the proliferation and migration of tumor cells and stimulates angiogenesis [38]. Further large, randomized studies are needed to fully explore the effects of RABs as adjunctive treatment in cancer patients.
We acknowledge several limitations. Although our results are consistent with current literature, this was a single-center retrospective study, and these results may not be fully transposable elsewhere, as our cohort reflects the case mix of cancer patients followed up in our institution. In addition, due to its retrospective design, some characteristics were missing, and others could not be reliably collected, including the dose and duration of RABs treatment especially after hospital discharge, the relevant oncologic outcomes, and the primary causes of death. Furthermore, this study analyzed patients hospitalized over a 14-year period, during which patients’ characteristics, ICU management, and prognosis have probably evolved. Finally, despite consistent results in the current literature, association is not causation so we cannot fully conclude on the benefit of these treatments in patients with malignancies.

5. Conclusions

In this retrospective cohort of patients with various solid malignancies requiring unplanned ICU admissions, ARBs users had a better one-year survival than non-RABs users, despite experiencing a life-threatening complication. We make the assumption that it might be linked to antiproliferative effect or decreased cancer-treatment adverse events, although it has to be explored in prospective studies. We did not find an association between ACEis use and one-year mortality in this population.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers15123183/s1, Figure S1: Balance of covariates in the adjusted and unadjusted cohort. Abbreviations: SAPS II: Simplified Acute Physiology Score II.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.L., F.P. and C.V.; Methodology, D.L., A.C., F.P. and C.V.; Formal analysis, D.L., J.C., J.-P.M., F.P. and C.V.; Data curation, D.L., A.C., M.T., J.C. and C.V.; Writing—original draft, D.L., F.P. and C.V.; Writing—review & editing, A.C., M.T., J.C. and J.-P.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the ethics committee from the Société de Réanimation de Langue Française (CE SRLF 17-03).

Informed Consent Statement

According to French regulations, this study was approved by the ethics committee from the Société de Réanimation de Langue Française (CE SRLF 17-03) which waived the need for signed consent.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors do not have any relationship with industry that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

References

  1. de Roquetaillade, C.; Jamme, M.; Charpentier, J.; Chiche, J.-D.; Cariou, A.; Mira, J.-P.; Pène, F.; Llitjos, J.-F. Hemodynamic Impact of Cardiovascular Antihypertensive Medications in Patients with Sepsis-Related Acute Circulatory Failure. Shock 2020, 54, 315–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Lim, H.J.; Lee, H.H.; Kim, A.J.; Ro, H.; Kim, H.S.; Chang, J.H.; Chung, W.; Jung, J.Y. Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Blockade in Critically Ill Patients Is Associated with Increased Risk for Acute Kidney Injury. Tohoku J. Exp. Med. 2016, 238, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Kobayashi, D.; Kuriyama, N.; Yanase, F.; Takahashi, O.; Aoki, K.; Komatsu, Y. Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor/Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Use Prior to Medical Intensive Care Unit Admission and in-Hospital Mortality: Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study. J. Nephrol. 2019, 32, 595–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Hsieh, M.-S.; How, C.-K.; Hsieh, V.C.-R.; Chen, P.-C. Preadmission Antihypertensive Drug Use and Sepsis Outcome: Impact of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEIs) and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARBs). Shock 2020, 53, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. On Behalf of FROG-ICU Investigators; Gayat, E.; Hollinger, A.; Cariou, A.; Deye, N.; Vieillard-Baron, A.; Jaber, S.; Chousterman, B.G.; Lu, Q.; Laterre, P.F.; et al. Impact of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Receptor Blockers on Post-ICU Discharge Outcome in Patients with Acute Kidney Injury. Intensive Care Med. 2018, 44, 598–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ou, S.; Lee, Y.; Lo, Y.; Chen, C.; Huang, Y.; Kuo, Y.; Chia, Y. Effects of Renin-Angiotensin–Aldosterone System Inhibitors on Long-Term Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Sepsis Survivors. JAHA 2021, 10, e022870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Angriman, F.; Rosella, L.C.; Lawler, P.R.; Ko, D.T.; Martin, C.M.; Wunsch, H.; Scales, D.C. Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors and Major Cardiovascular Events after Sepsis. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2023, 20, 414–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Laghlam, D.; Jozwiak, M.; Nguyen, L.S. Renin–Angiotensin–Aldosterone System and Immunomodulation: A State-of-the-Art Review. Cells 2021, 10, 1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Taccone, F.; Artigas, A.A.; Sprung, C.L.; Moreno, R.; Sakr, Y.; Vincent, J.-L. Characteristics and Outcomes of Cancer Patients in European ICUs. Crit. Care 2009, 13, R15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Vincent, J.-L.; Marshall, J.C.; Ñamendys-Silva, S.A.; François, B.; Martin-Loeches, I.; Lipman, J.; Reinhart, K.; Antonelli, M.; Pickkers, P.; Njimi, H.; et al. Assessment of the Worldwide Burden of Critical Illness: The Intensive Care Over Nations (ICON) Audit. Lancet Respir. Med. 2014, 2, 380–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Fuchs, H.E.; Jemal, A. Cancer Statistics. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2022, 72, 7–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tini, G.; Sarocchi, M.; Tocci, G.; Arboscello, E.; Ghigliotti, G.; Novo, G.; Brunelli, C.; Lenihan, D.; Volpe, M.; Spallarossa, P. Arterial Hypertension in Cancer: The Elephant in the Room. Int. J. Cardiol. 2019, 281, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Piccirillo, J.F. Prognostic Importance of Comorbidity in a Hospital-Based Cancer Registry. JAMA 2004, 291, 2441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Unger, T.; Borghi, C.; Charchar, F.; Khan, N.A.; Poulter, N.R.; Prabhakaran, D.; Ramirez, A.; Schlaich, M.; Stergiou, G.S.; Tomaszewski, M.; et al. 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension Practice Guidelines. Hypertension 2020, 75, 1334–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Drobni, Z.D.; Michielin, O.; Quinaglia, T.; Zlotoff, D.A.; Zubiri, L.; Gilman, H.K.; Supraja, S.; Merkely, B.; Muller, V.; Sullivan, R.J.; et al. Renin–Angiotensin–Aldosterone System Inhibitors and Survival in Patients with Hypertension Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. Eur. J. Cancer 2022, 163, 108–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Morris, Z.S.; Saha, S.; Magnuson, W.J.; Morris, B.A.; Borkenhagen, J.F.; Ching, A.; Hirose, G.; McMurry, V.; Francis, D.M.; Harari, P.M.; et al. Increased Tumor Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy among Rectal Cancer Patients Taking Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin Receptor Blockers: ACEIs/ARBs Affect Response in Rectal Cancer. Cancer 2016, 122, 2487–2495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Rosenthal, T.; Gavras, I. Renin–Angiotensin Inhibition in Combating Malignancy: A Review. Anticancer. Res. 2019, 39, 4597–4602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pinter, M.; Kwanten, W.J.; Jain, R.K. Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors to Mitigate Cancer Treatment-Related Adverse Events. Clin. Cancer Res. 2018, 24, 3803–3812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Moey, M.Y.Y.; Liles, D.K.; Carabello, B.A. Concomitant Use of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors Prevent Trastuzumab-Induced Cardiotoxicity in HER2+ Breast Cancer Patients: An Institutional Retrospective Study. Cardio-Oncol. 2019, 5, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vincent, J.L.; Moreno, R.; Takala, J.; Willatts, S.; De Mendonça, A.; Bruining, H.; Reinhart, C.K.; Suter, P.M.; Thijs, L.G. The SOFA (Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment) Score to Describe Organ Dysfunction/Failure. On Behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 1996, 22, 707–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Le Gall, J.R.; Lemeshow, S.; Saulnier, F. A New Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) Based on a European/North American Multicenter Study. JAMA 1993, 270, 2957–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Vigneron, C.; Charpentier, J.; Valade, S.; Alexandre, J.; Chelabi, S.; Palmieri, L.-J.; Franck, N.; Laurence, V.; Mira, J.-P.; Jamme, M.; et al. Patterns of ICU Admissions and Outcomes in Patients with Solid Malignancies over the Revolution of Cancer Treatment. Ann. Intensive Care 2021, 11, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Ozawa, T.; Hashiguchi, Y.; Yagi, T.; Fukushima, Y.; Shimada, R.; Hayama, T.; Tsuchiya, T.; Nozawa, K.; Iinuma, H.; Ishihara, S.; et al. Angiotensin I-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers May Reduce Tumor Recurrence in Left-Sided and Early Colorectal Cancers. Int. J. Color. Dis. 2019, 34, 1731–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Santala, E.E.E.; Murto, M.O.; Artama, M.; Pukkala, E.; Visvanathan, K.; Murtola, T.J. Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Associated with Improved Breast Cancer Survival—A Nationwide Cohort Study from Finland. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2020, 29, 2376–2382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Santala, E.E.E.; Kotsar, A.; Veitonmäki, T.; Tammela, T.L.J.; Murtola, T.J. Risk of Urothelial Cancer Death among People Using Antihypertensive Drugs-a Cohort Study from Finland. Scand. J. Urol. 2019, 53, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Zhou, Q.; Chen, D.-S.; Xin, L.; Zhou, L.-Q.; Zhang, H.-T.; Liu, L.; Yuan, Y.-W.; Li, S.-H. The Renin-Angiotensin System Blockers and Survival in Digestive System Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicine 2020, 99, e19075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Song, T.; Choi, C.H.; Kim, M.K.; Kim, M.-L.; Yun, B.S.; Seong, S.J. The Effect of Angiotensin System Inhibitors (Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin Receptor Blockers) on Cancer Recurrence and Survival: A Meta-Analysis. Eur. J. Cancer Prev. 2017, 26, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ino, K.; Shibata, K.; Kajiyama, H.; Yamamoto, E.; Nagasaka, T.; Nawa, A.; Nomura, S.; Kikkawa, F. Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Expression in Ovarian Cancer and Its Correlation with Tumour Angiogenesis and Patient Survival. Br. J. Cancer 2006, 94, 552–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Acconcia, F. The Network of Angiotensin Receptors in Breast Cancer. Cells 2020, 9, 1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cortez-Retamozo, V.; Etzrodt, M.; Newton, A.; Ryan, R.; Pucci, F.; Sio, S.W.; Kuswanto, W.; Rauch, P.J.; Chudnovskiy, A.; Iwamoto, Y.; et al. Angiotensin II Drives the Production of Tumor-Promoting Macrophages. Immunity 2013, 38, 296–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Liu, H.; Naxerova, K.; Pinter, M.; Incio, J.; Lee, H.; Shigeta, K.; Ho, W.; Crain, J.; Jacobson, A.; Michelakos, T.; et al. Use of Angiotensin System Inhibitors Is Associated with Immune Activation and Longer Survival in Non-Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2017, 23, 5959–5969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Zhao, Y.; Cao, J.; Melamed, A.; Worley, M.; Gockley, A.; Jones, D.; Nia, H.T.; Zhang, Y.; Stylianopoulos, T.; Kumar, A.S.; et al. Losartan Treatment Enhances Chemotherapy Efficacy and Reduces Ascites in Ovarian Cancer Models by Normalizing the Tumor Stroma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 2210–2219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Guglin, M.; Krischer, J.; Tamura, R.; Fink, A.; Bello-Matricaria, L.; McCaskill-Stevens, W.; Munster, P.N. Randomized Trial of Lisinopril Versus Carvedilol to Prevent Trastuzumab Cardiotoxicity in Patients with Breast Cancer. J. Am. Coll Cardiol. 2019, 73, 2859–2868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Gulati, G.; Heck, S.L.; Ree, A.H.; Hoffmann, P.; Schulz-Menger, J.; Fagerland, M.W.; Gravdehaug, B.; von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff, F.; Bratland, Å.; Storås, T.H.; et al. Prevention of Cardiac Dysfunction during Adjuvant Breast Cancer Therapy (PRADA): A 2 × 2 Factorial, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Clinical Trial of Candesartan and Metoprolol. Eur. Heart J. 2016, 37, 1671–1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Asgharzadeh, F.; Hashemzehi, M.; Moradi-Marjaneh, R.; Hassanian, S.M.; Ferns, G.A.; Khazaei, M.; Avan, A. Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers as Therapeutic Options in the Treatment of Renal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Life Sci. 2020, 242, 117181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Hicks, B.M.; Filion, K.B.; Yin, H.; Sakr, L.; Udell, J.A.; Azoulay, L. Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Risk of Lung Cancer: Population Based Cohort Study. BMJ 2018, 363, k4209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Trifilieff, A.; Silva, A.D.; Gies, J.P. Kinins and Respiratory Tract Diseases. Eur. Respir. J. 1993, 6, 576–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Muñoz, M.; Coveñas, R. Involvement of Substance P and the NK-1 Receptor in Human Pathology. Amino Acids 2014, 46, 1727–1750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 15 03183 g001 550
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier survival estimates of ICU survival according to RABs use. Abbreviations: ACEis: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARBs: angiotensin-receptor blockers; ICU: intensive care unit; RABs: renin-angiotensin system blockers.
Figure 1. Kaplan–Meier survival estimates of ICU survival according to RABs use. Abbreviations: ACEis: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARBs: angiotensin-receptor blockers; ICU: intensive care unit; RABs: renin-angiotensin system blockers.
Cancers 15 03183 g001
Cancers 15 03183 g002 550
Figure 2. Independent determinants of in-ICU, in-hospital, and one-year mortality. Panel (A) Independent risk factors for in-ICU mortality. Panel (B) Independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality. Panel (C) Independent risk factors for one-year mortality. Abbreviations: ACEis: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARBs: angiotensin-receptor blockers; CI: confidence interval; DFLSTs: decisions to forgo life-sustaining therapies; ICU: intensive care unit; OR: Odds Ratio; SAPS II: Simplified Acute Physiology Score II.
Figure 2. Independent determinants of in-ICU, in-hospital, and one-year mortality. Panel (A) Independent risk factors for in-ICU mortality. Panel (B) Independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality. Panel (C) Independent risk factors for one-year mortality. Abbreviations: ACEis: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARBs: angiotensin-receptor blockers; CI: confidence interval; DFLSTs: decisions to forgo life-sustaining therapies; ICU: intensive care unit; OR: Odds Ratio; SAPS II: Simplified Acute Physiology Score II.
Cancers 15 03183 g002
Cancers 15 03183 g003 550
Figure 3. Kaplan–Meier survival estimates of one-year survival according to ARBs use after propensity score matching. Abbreviations: ARBs: angiotensin-receptor blockers; RABs: renin-angiotensin system blockers.
Figure 3. Kaplan–Meier survival estimates of one-year survival according to ARBs use after propensity score matching. Abbreviations: ARBs: angiotensin-receptor blockers; RABs: renin-angiotensin system blockers.
Cancers 15 03183 g003
Table
Table 1. Baseline patients’ characteristics.
Table 1. Baseline patients’ characteristics.
No RABs
n = 1431		ARBs
n = 220		ACEis
n = 194		p
Demographic conditions
    Age, median [IQR]66.0 [57.0–74.0]72.0 [65.0–79.0]72.0 [65.0–78.0]<0.001
    Male gender, n (%)851 (59.5)143 (65.0)144 (74.2)<0.001
Non-cancer comorbid conditions
    Hypertension, n (%)382 (26.7)220 (100.0)194 (100.0)<0.001
    Diabetes mellitus, n (%)197 (13.8)85 (38.6)70 (36.1)<0.001
    Cirrhosis, n (%)85 (5.9)12 (5.5)15 (7.7)0.569
    Chronic renal failure n, (%)100 (7.0)38 (17.3)27 (13.9)<0.001
    Chronic dialysis, n (%)10 (0.7)1 (0.5)1 (0.5)0.888
    Chronic respiratory failure, n (%)57 (4.0)7 (3.2)14 (7.2)0.079
    Ischemic cardiopathy, n (%)121 (8.5)47 (21.4)58 (29.9)<0.001
    Chronic heart failure, n (%)43 (3.0)17 (7.7)28 (14.4)<0.001
    Peripheral arterial disease, n (%)56 (3.9)19 (8.6)30 (15.5)<0.001
    Stroke, n (%)46 (3.2)9 (4.1)24 (12.4)<0.001
Type of cancer, n (%) 0.056
    Lung353 (24.7)56 (25.5)47 (24.2)
    Breast149 (10.4)17 (7.7)11 (5.7)
    Gastrointestinal380 (26.6)60 (27.2)54 (27.8)
    Urologic259 (18.1)60 (27.3)52 (26.8)
    Skin27 (1.9)3 (1.4)3 (1.5)
    Gynecologic63 (4.4)8 (3.6)8 (4.1)
    Head and neck53 (3.7)5 (2.3)6 (3.1)
    Others147 (10.3)11 (5.0)13 (6.7)
Stage, n (%) 0.002
    Localized304 (21.2)74 (33.6)54 (27.8)
    Advanced308 (21.5)42 (19.1)44 (22.7)
    Metastatic809 (56.5)101 (45.9)94 (48.5)
    Unknown10 (0.6)3 (1.4)2 (1.0)
Current status, n (%) 0.015
    Newly diagnosed409 (28.6)66 (30.0)65 (33.5)
    Partial remission290 (20.3)43 (19.5)50 (25.8)
    Complete remission182 (12.7)40 (18.2)30 (15.5)
    Progression532 (37.2)67 (30.5)47 (24.2)
    Unknown18 (1.3)4 (1.8)2 (1.0)
Recent oncological treatment (<3 months)
    Chemotherapy <3 months734 (51.4)96 (43.6)96 (49.5)0.098
    Surgery <3 months205 (14.3)40 (18.2)27 (13.9)0.309
Abbreviations: ACEis: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARBs: angiotensin-receptor blockers; RABs: renin-angiotensin system blockers.
Table
Table 2. Features at ICU admission and outcomes.
Table 2. Features at ICU admission and outcomes.
No RABs
n = 1431		ARBs
n = 220		ACEis
n = 194
SOFA score, median [IQR]5.0 [4.0–8.0]5.0 [4.0–8.0]5.0 [4.0–8.0]0.861
SAPS2, median [IQR]48.0 [35.0–63.0]49.5 [40.0–66.8]50.0 [38.0–68.0]0.015
Reasons for admission 0.085
    Cancer-specific complication408 (28.5)37 (16.8)43 (22.2)<0.001
    Bleeding69 (4.8)19 (8.6)10 (5.1)
    Infection510 (35.6)80 (36.4)60 (30.9)
    Acute renal failure94 (6.6)24 (10.9)17 (8.8)
    Ischemic event16 (1.1)1 (0.5)6 (3.1)
    Thrombotic event42 (2.9)8 (3.6)5 (2.6)
    Metabolic84 (5.9)9 (4.1)7 (3.6)
    Others502 (35.1)65 (29.5)70 (36.1)
Organ failure supports
    Mechanical ventilation735 (51.4)110 (50.0)114 (58.8)0.126
    Vasopressor/inotropes476 (33.3)80 (36.4)76 (39.2)0.208
    Renal replacement therapy215 (15.0)51 (23.2)37 (19.1)0.006
Outcomes
    ICU mortality332 (23.2)42 (19.1)34 (17.5)0.104
    In-hospital mortality590/1370 (43.0)76/214 (35.5)72/187 (38.5)0.087
    6-month mortality755/1295(58.3)96/197 (48.7)101/175 (57.7)0.040
    One-year mortality863/1278 (67.5)117/195 (60.0)115/172 (66.9)0.116
    Decision to forgo life-sustaining therapy419 (29.3)56 (25.5)54 (27.8)0.487
Abbreviations: ACEis: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARBs: angiotensin-receptor blockers; ICU: intensive care unit; RABs: renin-angiotensin system blockers; SAPS II: Simplified Acute Physiology Score II; SOFA: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Laghlam, D.; Chaba, A.; Tarneaud, M.; Charpentier, J.; Mira, J.-P.; Pène, F.; Vigneron, C. Survival Benefit of Renin-Angiotensin System Blockers in Critically Ill Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Study. Cancers 2023, 15, 3183. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15123183

AMA Style

Laghlam D, Chaba A, Tarneaud M, Charpentier J, Mira J-P, Pène F, Vigneron C. Survival Benefit of Renin-Angiotensin System Blockers in Critically Ill Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Study. Cancers. 2023; 15(12):3183. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15123183

Chicago/Turabian Style

Laghlam, Driss, Anis Chaba, Matthias Tarneaud, Julien Charpentier, Jean-Paul Mira, Frédéric Pène, and Clara Vigneron. 2023. "Survival Benefit of Renin-Angiotensin System Blockers in Critically Ill Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Study" Cancers 15, no. 12: 3183. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15123183

APA Style

Laghlam, D., Chaba, A., Tarneaud, M., Charpentier, J., Mira, J. -P., Pène, F., & Vigneron, C. (2023). Survival Benefit of Renin-Angiotensin System Blockers in Critically Ill Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Study. Cancers, 15(12), 3183. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15123183

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop