Unraveling the Link: Cannabis Use Disorder and Pulmonary Embolism-Related Hospital Outcomes in Female Breast Cancer Survivors

Please use this link to access this publication: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006497123139188

Abstract

Background: The use of cannabis in cancer patients has gained significant attention due to its analgesic properties, which help alleviate cancer-related pain. Studies have also shown the interference of cannabis with the coagulation system. We aimed to study the impact of cannabis use disorder (CUD) and Pulmonary embolism (PE) on outcomes in female breast cancer survivors, considering reports suggesting significant overlap between recreational and medicinal use. Our objective was to compare outcomes in CUD+ (with cannabis use disorder) and CUD- (without cannabis use disorder) cohorts to gain critical insights into this group and understand the impact of CUD on PE-related hospitalization and outcomes.

Methods: National Inpatient Sample (NIS) data from 2020 was utilized in order to analyze inpatient cohorts of PE hospitalizations. The International Classification of Diseases 10 (ICD 10) codes for pulmonary embolism, cannabis use disorder, and female breast cancer were utilized to classify cohorts. All cases of female breast cancer and pulmonary embolism with an age >18 years were included in the final analysis. The primary outcome was the impact of CUD on PE-related hospitalizations in female breast cancer survivors. We also compared demographic correlations and comorbidities affecting outcomes between cohorts.

Results: This study included a total of 508065 admissions among breast cancer survivors, with a median age of 74 years for the entire cohort. The prevalence of PE admissions was lower in CUD+ cohort compared to CUD- cohort (1.3% vs. 2.1%). The CUD+ cohort was relatively younger (median 66 vs 74 years, p<0.001). Overall, admission rates were higher among white patients (77%) and this trend was statistically significantly higher in the 76-100 ^th percentile household income group (p<0.002) compared to CUD+(50%) and CUD-(26.5%). Most admissions were non-elective (95.4%), with no statistical significance between CUD- and CUD+ patients (p=0.16). The majority of readmissions occurred in urban teaching hospitals (75.5%), with no significant difference observed between CUD- and CUD+ patients (p=0.111). Regionally, the South had a higher admission rate (37.2%) compared to other regions and this difference was statistically significant (p<0.001) between CUD- and CUD+ patients. Among the coexisting comorbidities, hypertension showed a significant difference between CUD- (70%) and CUD+(37.5%) patients (p<0.001). Alcohol use disorder (p<0.001) and cancer (p<0.001) had significant associations with CUD+, along with prior myocardial infarction (p=0.005) and drug use (p<0.001) were significantly associated with CUD+.Furthermore, there was difference in routine patient disposition between between CUD-(45.3%) and CUD+(37.5%),(p=0.033) and length of stay (4 VS 2 days), (p=0.033) and cost of stay (47033 vs 27668 $), (p=0.017). The multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the odds of PE-related hospitalization in CUD+ vs CUD- cohorts among female breast cancer survivors were not statistically significant, with an OR of 0.79 (CI: 0.38-1.62, p=0.512). Subgroup analysis by age demonstrated no statistically significant differences in odds for PE-related hospitalization between CUD+ and CUD- cohorts. For the age group of 18-44 years, the OR was 1.37 (CI: 0.18-10.60, p=0.762). In the 45-64 years age group, the OR was 0.48 (CI: 0.15-1.53, p=0.215), and for those aged ≥65 years, the OR was 1.32 (CI: 0.48-3.67, p=0.590). Furthermore, the analysis by race indicated that the odds of PE-related hospitalization did not reach statistical significance in both white and black female breast cancer survivors with CUD. For white patients, the OR was 0.64 (CI: 0.23-1.73, p=0.375), while for black patients, the OR was 1.15 (CI: 0.38-3.46, p=0.804).

Conclusion: Among female breast cancer survivors, the presence of CUD did not show a statistically significant impact on the odds of PE-related hospitalization. Subgroup analysis by age and race also revealed no significant differences in the odds of PE-related hospitalization between CUD+ and CUD- cohorts. These findings underscore the importance of considering CUD when managing pulmonary embolism in breast cancer survivor females and emphasize the need for further research to understand the complex interplay between these factors.