# Transcatheter aortic valve replacement before to breast cancer management: case report and literature review

## TL;DR

A patient with both aortic stenosis and breast cancer had heart valve surgery first to enable cancer treatment.

## Contribution

Presents a novel case of TAVR preceding cancer treatment in a patient with severe AS and reduced ejection fraction.

## Key findings

- TAVR improved cardiac function enough to allow subsequent cancer treatment.
- TAVR may be a suitable option for cancer patients with severe AS due to its minimal invasiveness and shorter recovery.
- Coexisting AS can delay or complicate cancer treatment, requiring individualized clinical decisions.

## Abstract

The coexistence of aortic stenosis (AS) and neoplastic pathology are common due to shared risk factors with atherosclerotic disease, such as diabetes, inflammatory conditions, and smoking. Severe AS in patients with cancer requires careful assessment in order to select the appropriate therapeutic choices and their timing (i.e. valve treatment first vs. cancer treatment first).

A 66-year-old woman with a history of smoking was admitted to our centre due to heart failure (HF). During her hospitalization, severe AS with severe ventricular dysfunction and cancer were documented. Because of her severe heart disease, she was unable to receive antineoplastic treatment. Therefore, she underwent percutaneous surgery to treat the aortic valve. After that, the management of cancer became possible, which included bilateral radical mastectomy and chemotherapy.

We are presenting a case of cancer coexisting with aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricle ejection fraction. In this case, we performed Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) with the aim of improving the ejection fraction, followed by chemotherapy.

Cancer patients may be further disadvantaged by AS if it interferes with their treatment by increasing the risk associated with oncologic surgery and compounding the risks associated with cardiotoxicity and HF. Clinical trials and guidelines on TAVR exclude cohorts with limited life expectancy. Hence, the correct and optimal care for cancer patients with severe AS is complex. The TAVR, for cancer patients with severe AS, can more frequently be the best clinical choice by avoiding cardiopulmonary bypass, minimal invasiveness, and therefore, shorter recovery time.