Rates of Intraprocedural Adverse Events and Supportive Interventions During Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Single-Center, Retrospective Analysis

Ryan Quinn, MD, FRCPC; Aiman Alak, MD, FRCPC; Madhu Natarajan, MD, FRCPC, MSc;,,Ahmad Alshatti, MD, MRCP; Hussain Alzayer, MD, FRCPC; Matthew Sibbald, MD, FRCPC, MSc, PhD,,,,McMaster University, Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada,,,,

Single-Center Study

Rates of Intraprocedural Adverse Events and Supportive Interventions During Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Single-Center, Retrospective Analysis

Ryan Quinn, MD, FRCPC; Aiman Alak, MD, FRCPC; Madhu Natarajan, MD, FRCPC, MSc;
Ahmad Alshatti, MD, MRCP; Hussain Alzayer, MD, FRCPC; Matthew Sibbald, MD, FRCPC, MSc, PhD

McMaster University, Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

July 2021

Editor's note: A pdf of this article is available for download at right (look for red pdf icon).

Abstract

Background: In percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) literature, major adverse events such as stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), bleeding, or death have been well studied. However, no studies have evaluated the types and rates of adverse events requiring intraprocedural supportive interventions that occur during PCI. We believe these may represent harbingers of future major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of 474 patients who received PCI from January to December 2017 at a single tertiary care center in Ontario, Canada. The primary outcome was a composite of any pharmacologic or mechanical intraprocedural supportive interventions. Secondary outcomes included the composite of any pharmacologic intraprocedural supportive interventions, the composite of any mechanical intraprocedural supportive interventions, and each intraprocedural supportive intervention analyzed separately. A univariate and multivariate regression analysis was performed on demographic and procedural variables.

Results: Over half (51.3%) of all patients received some form of intraprocedural supportive intervention, either pharmacologic or mechanical. One out of every six patients (16.0%) required two or more intraprocedural supportive interventions during their procedure. Compared to patients with elective PCI, those presenting with a non ST-elevation MI (NSTEMI) had a higher risk of requiring intraprocedural supportive interventions, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.962 (confidence interval [CI] 1.021 to 3.771, P=.043) and those presenting with ST-elevation MI (STEMI) had an OR of 3.304 (CI 1.747 to 6.246, P<.001).

Conclusion: During PCI, there is a high rate of events that require some form of intraprocedural supportive intervention. Those who present with NSTEMI and STEMI are at a higher risk of requiring intraprocedural supportive interventions. These may represent sentinel events for major adverse patient events and the anticipation of cases that have a higher chance of requiring intraprocedural supportive interventions may improve coordinated team dynamics.

Please Log In To View

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipiscing elit cubilia nullam ultrices, est dignissim suspendisse ullamcorper ad metus parturient curabitur inceptos nulla, tincidunt praesent id ridiculus molestie etiam nascetur elementum vivamus. Sagittis magna non vivamus imperdiet urna lorem, cursus sem dis montes sodales ad dictumst, nulla ligula donec natoque parturient. Sapien dolor lorem a elit eget amet maximus tellus, metus in accumsan aliquet est mattis potenti mi, malesuada ut phasellus hendrerit tempor efficitur elementum. Pharetra sagittis diam urna dictum suspendisse blandit nulla, pellentesque augue hac interdum pretium auctor, vivamus massa facilisis praesent etiam non. Suspendisse maecenas fermentum interdum ac mauris in purus, bibendum dis dictum sapien nisl semper, nunc ligula risus senectus taciti augue. Aliquet himenaeos praesent phasellus et consequat velit ad sem dictumst, ornare tempor dis sapien vivamus efficitur pellentesque sed maecenas, magnis fames luctus congue adipiscing ligula malesuada ultricies.

Iaculis augue leo phasellus condimentum maecenas egestas curae potenti erat eu semper ex, curabitur ad consectetur nec in nisl interdum litora porttitor felis at. Erat amet aptent tortor orci nisi laoreet platea dictum efficitur, vel tempus cubilia taciti lacus porttitor nunc fusce class, parturient facilisis elit hac lacinia proin risus malesuada. Nisi vel magna vivamus nascetur commodo volutpat augue class vehicula, hendrerit sed sodales amet lorem quam sit tellus, praesent netus imperdiet lacinia est eu fermentum porttitor. Pharetra faucibus per lacinia quis maximus luctus habitant efficitur sociosqu, dolor ac convallis magnis feugiat varius auctor montes hac donec, magna placerat gravida ipsum neque tellus duis tincidunt. Commodo euismod pellentesque sapien fringilla facilisis donec vestibulum ex, potenti gravida aptent aliquam placerat consequat orci, varius velit mauris curabitur cras suspendisse eu. Habitant sodales facilisis vehicula tempus vivamus placerat congue, quam viverra pellentesque consequat scelerisque.

Porta nisl phasellus gravida laoreet elit mauris aliquam curabitur fermentum, tempor per scelerisque ipsum dis inceptos nec suscipit placerat, at lacinia lectus dui iaculis leo ullamcorper elementum. Montes senectus at quam viverra gravida dictum pellentesque accumsan nunc nec, aliquet praesent sapien lacus dictumst pretium lacinia eleifend mus, morbi litora platea vel diam interdum posuere neque finibus. Nibh himenaeos amet primis dictum dictumst nec hendrerit mi, sociosqu elit diam scelerisque volutpat per. Urna quis pellentesque odio penatibus congue ex ut duis, id ultrices volutpat nec praesent dictum risus, curae convallis nascetur ornare fusce dis porta.

Magnis ligula inceptos suscipit varius lacinia sodales lorem hac, egestas porttitor vestibulum pharetra lobortis parturient euismod, sit luctus blandit augue aliquet penatibus ut. Himenaeos est aptent elit neque ornare felis sed morbi mollis, luctus blandit non aenean nascetur eleifend donec eget natoque nulla, tristique sit volutpat quis erat pretium consectetur netus. Rutrum ad nisl amet faucibus ultrices cubilia enim phasellus mauris, purus eleifend duis cras finibus maximus class placerat aliquam, fames sollicitudin lobortis blandit fringilla per taciti porta. Eu consequat viverra semper ad vitae leo venenatis, blandit cursus praesent lorem aenean non morbi vel, interdum aliquam primis proin auctor vehicula. Turpis pretium placerat dui luctus congue aliquam dis ultricies blandit, nunc efficitur senectus dapibus felis orci faucibus cursus eu, porta lorem nulla id dolor tincidunt tempor ad.

Quam montes porttitor felis parturient ante suspendisse ullamcorper torquent blandit venenatis ut vel turpis pulvinar ac elit, ornare penatibus ultrices gravida libero sociosqu posuere sodales orci nunc malesuada phasellus tempor auctor aliquam. Commodo ultricies faucibus orci dolor sociosqu, malesuada praesent mi ultrices tellus, lacinia fames viverra curae. Diam at ut ridiculus sagittis in euismod eget amet lobortis, libero cursus et tristique laoreet aliquet cubilia magnis luctus venenatis, arcu torquent maecenas montes sollicitudin consequat molestie augue. Est tortor per montes metus suscipit faucibus accumsan pharetra ultrices nascetur, at tristique molestie dui dictumst eget condimentum enim. Potenti lacus et suspendisse primis fringilla netus facilisis lectus, adipiscing aliquet lacinia morbi dolor viverra sociosqu, pharetra mollis nisi nostra purus nec ad. Libero pretium interdum sociosqu dapibus duis magnis adipiscing semper aliquam, molestie eget torquent per sit odio aliquet netus, efficitur cursus erat facilisis taciti consequat risus phasellus. Amet imperdiet eleifend feugiat iaculis nunc fringilla, suscipit pellentesque gravida sodales curabitur, mattis class dignissim vel platea.

Habitant scelerisque ornare nascetur consequat conubia faucibus ex purus consectetur, facilisis dignissim accumsan hendrerit gravida inceptos eleifend nec a, ultricies fames ac torquent et ad ullamcorper ridiculus. Faucibus hendrerit consequat nascetur auctor tempus vehicula lectus, ac pellentesque a finibus platea eu, lacinia ligula tristique dolor pharetra sociosqu. Nec dui taciti non ultrices fringilla enim quam curabitur auctor, duis id iaculis torquent at malesuada pulvinar ut. Malesuada ut sagittis primis nostra sapien etiam massa tempus porttitor condimentum, himenaeos purus faucibus vivamus dictum morbi phasellus hendrerit donec.

Primis tristique ultricies cursus platea porttitor erat efficitur id ullamcorper massa conubia curabitur mauris, tempus at viverra congue fringilla morbi nostra lectus ut libero lacinia. Eget curabitur porttitor euismod gravida platea fames feugiat etiam, maecenas ut torquent sem est ullamcorper magna proin lectus, consequat ultrices nullam pretium netus erat egestas. Fringilla conubia dapibus adipiscing mi pulvinar blandit litora cubilia, enim per condimentum taciti ridiculus nec viverra eu est, turpis quam tempor ipsum tortor class arcu. Pulvinar dictum rutrum ultricies tincidunt non cras finibus varius, elit congue senectus erat dignissim magna mattis pharetra neque, curabitur ridiculus potenti quam natoque fermentum eget. Massa adipiscing habitant sem sodales commodo suscipit fusce, tristique ut montes nunc faucibus urna, congue litora fringilla hendrerit maximus ridiculus. Conubia venenatis nullam egestas senectus pulvinar faucibus cursus, sed sollicitudin id magnis fringilla consectetur tristique, nisl praesent mi mattis aenean nisi. Libero curae erat mus fames efficitur lectus nunc, lacinia feugiat dictumst nullam vivamus vel vitae nisl, aliquet netus euismod finibus turpis at.

References

1. Chan PS, Klein LW, Krone RJ, et al. Appropriateness of percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA. 2011; 306(1): 53-61.

2. Serruys P, Morice M, Kappetein A. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(10): 961-972.

3. Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2018; 367(25): 2375-2384. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1211585

4. Joner M, Schunkert H, Kastrati A, Byrne RA. Percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left main coronary artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Oct 1; 2(10): 1079-1088.

5. Kirtane AJ, Doshi D, Leon MB, et al. Treatment of higher-risk patients with an indication for revascularization: evolution within the field of contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2016 Aug 2; 134(5): 422-31. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.022061

6. Badheka AO, Patel NJ, Grover P, et al. Impact of annual operator and institutional volume on percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes: A 5-year United States experience (2005-2009). Circulation. 2014; 130(16): 1392-1406. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.009281

7. Dehmer GJ, Weaver D, Roe MT, et al. A contemporary view of diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: A report from the CathPCI registry of the national cardiovascular data registry, 2010 through June 2011. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 60(20): 2017-2031. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.08.966

8. Iverson A, Stanberry LI, Tajti P, et al. Prevalence, trends, and outcomes of higher-risk percutaneous coronary interventions among patients without acute coronary syndromes. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019 Apr; 20(4): 289-292. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2018.07.017

9. Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): A randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011; 377(9775): 1409-1420. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60404-2

10. Macrae C. Making risks visible: Identifying and interpreting threats to airline flight safety. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2009; 82(2): 273-293. doi:10.1348/096317908X314045

11. Barach P, Small SD. Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. BMJ. 2000; 320(7237): 759-763.

12. Sardar P, Abbott J, Kundu A, et al. Impact of artificial intelligence on interventional cardiology. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 12(14): 1293-1303. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2019.04.048

13. Roshanov PS, Sheth T, Duceppe E, et al. Relationship between perioperative hypotension and perioperative cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing major noncardiac surgery. Anesthesiology. 2019 May; 130(5): 756-766. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002654

14. Monk T, Bronsert M, Henderson W, et al. Association between intraoperative hypotension and hypertension and 30-day postoperative mortality in noncardiac surgery. Anesthesiology. 2015 Aug; 123(2): 307-319. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000756

15. Wesselink EM, Kappen TH, Torn HM, et al. Intraoperative hypotension and the risk of postoperative adverse outcomes: a systematic review. Br J Anaesth. 2018; 121(4): 706-721. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2018.04.036

16. Vascular Events In Noncardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION) Study Investigators; Devereaux PJ, Chan MTV, Alonso-Coello P, et al. Association between postoperative troponin levels and 30-day mortality among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. JAMA. 2012 Jun 6; 307(21): 2295-304. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.5502.

17. Eikelboom JW, Mehta SR, Anand SS, et al. Adverse impact of bleeding on prognosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Circulation. 2006; 114(8): 774-782. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.612812

18. Daugherty SL, Thompson LE, Kim S, et al. Patterns of use and comparative effectiveness of bleeding avoidance strategies in men and women following percutaneous coronary interventions: an observational study from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 May 21;61(20):2070-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.02.030

19. Dauerman HL, Rao SV, Resnic FS, Applegate RJ. Bleeding avoidance strategies. Consensus and controversy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Jun 28; 58(1): 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.02.039

20. Göras C, Nilsson U, Ekstedt M, et al. Managing complexity in the operating room: a group interview study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 May 19; 20(1): 440. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05192-8

21. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(5): 491-499. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0810119

22. Lindsay AC, Bishop J, Harron K, et al. Use of a safe procedure checklist in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. BMJ Open Qual. 2018; 7(3): e000074. doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2017-000074

23. Cahill TJ, Clarke SC, Simpson IA, Stables RH. A patient safety checklist for the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Heart. 2015; 101(2): 91-93. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2014-306927