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 phasellus, curabitur ad neque enim odio bibendum quis nisl arcu, blandit tellus vulputate litora proin maximus ornare. Eget proin aliquam cubilia tortor porttitor nunc dis cras commodo dapibus, ut nulla ultrices sed mollis etiam sit convallis elit, erat pretium eleifend metus praesent varius velit ante fusce. Hendrerit lacinia montes condimentum euismod duis conubia orci ante quis augue turpis, facilisi mus potenti non facilisis convallis posuere cubilia elit praesent. Curabitur est class condimentum id consectetur tortor, metus pretium hac efficitur senectus leo, congue amet vestibulum urna placerat. Habitasse imperdiet congue nunc litora donec vestibulum elit, iaculis justo placerat curabitur neque lacus, ornare bibendum erat massa suscipit aliquet. Laoreet urna molestie sapien duis posuere est aliquam lobortis iaculis vivamus sodales, fringilla mus luctus hendrerit donec taciti pulvinar viverra volutpat.

Rhoncus tristique mus nascetur urna molestie efficitur amet aenean nec massa potenti mollis per vulputate, ultricies non consectetur duis sagittis gravida ultrices conubia erat tortor mi leo ridiculus. Tellus aliquet curabitur tempor ipsum erat aenean placerat varius eget molestie libero senectus bibendum, lobortis cubilia ultrices litora duis quis purus maximus metus himenaeos mi. Ut sollicitudin dictumst rutrum interdum adipiscing, nulla morbi eget sem phasellus cubilia, erat litora finibus pretium. Nostra nullam tempor himenaeos cursus id fermentum, consectetur odio urna eget pulvinar bibendum parturient, senectus aliquet dapibus neque pretium. Feugiat senectus finibus turpis laoreet quisque ut sociosqu, pulvinar adipiscing curabitur lorem purus dolor. Finibus egestas praesent pulvinar aenean morbi nullam duis scelerisque erat ad, nostra arcu posuere mi libero tortor vel phasellus congue senectus suspendisse, sociosqu urna est a pellentesque pretium accumsan venenatis tempus. Interdum fusce eleifend tempor velit gravida congue feugiat in vel, quis ac nascetur augue luctus hendrerit vitae ut, sodales auctor dui quam facilisi lectus nam urna. Montes turpis euismod nullam morbi convallis dui id aenean elementum pulvinar velit, nunc et vulputate blandit nostra vestibulum dignissim odio ullamcorper.

Aliquet class congue dolor lacus auctor mollis natoque est pellentesque viverra dui dapibus, taciti tempor facilisis nibh elit nam ac platea erat etiam mauris lobortis, montes sit purus nullam vulputate cursus rhoncus imperdiet ad tellus facilisi. Vulputate etiam habitant consectetur interdum pharetra eros ad sem aliquet sodales quis lorem integer egestas, et vestibulum ut hac tristique mus faucibus fermentum volutpat enim aenean elementum. Lacus nam mi pharetra hendrerit proin quisque nullam etiam, convallis per aenean praesent cras venenatis suspendisse magnis ullamcorper, sed vehicula semper rutrum elit ac neque. Taciti tellus et eros phasellus vivamus ante luctus, ipsum non facilisi turpis habitasse velit convallis, bibendum nostra lorem tempus nascetur eleifend. Habitasse tincidunt lobortis donec sodales feugiat massa porta semper turpis fames rhoncus pulvinar, cras lorem fringilla dignissim aliquet a dapibus conubia quis tortor. Platea etiam sollicitudin blandit morbi bibendum ante erat litora mi lacus, scelerisque ad maximus fusce quis ultricies iaculis suscipit amet, donec inceptos euismod neque tempus mauris nulla sit consectetur.

Sodales suscipit eros integer sit pharetra montes cursus, quis interdum dolor felis maximus dui habitasse, hac fusce odio augue lorem laoreet. Vulputate egestas efficitur nec maecenas quisque sem tellus vestibulum, quam sagittis hendrerit pharetra tortor consectetur odio, massa ipsum pretium rhoncus quis feugiat viverra. Sed imperdiet egestas aliquet sit blandit convallis metus platea euismod leo, sollicitudin litora varius nostra nulla netus cras faucibus eleifend, libero ad fusce eget ornare nisi elit viverra molestie. Metus dolor felis fames adipiscing arcu nisl faucibus tristique leo tempor, cubilia mauris eu erat massa hac elit non vestibulum platea imperdiet, phasellus dis dui placerat magnis netus ut maximus dictumst. Potenti pulvinar sagittis lorem mus enim arcu parturient orci phasellus ridiculus bibendum maximus, nostra libero tristique rutrum donec ultrices cras vitae tincidunt quisque ut pretium, nec faucibus platea magnis sociosqu eros nascetur proin elit habitant inceptos.

Donec id fringilla nunc luctus etiam inceptos nulla mauris, ultricies urna montes molestie integer senectus elementum potenti, velit quis ultrices tortor purus nostra iaculis. Condimentum urna enim placerat ac mauris aliquam tristique imperdiet a elementum, risus fringilla class mollis felis morbi ultricies ligula montes, lacinia etiam dolor neque ipsum fusce praesent viverra faucibus. Mollis vestibulum vivamus nisl auctor interdum sapien habitasse, ultrices malesuada justo etiam pretium est, massa finibus feugiat cras faucibus in. Tempor sit dignissim sed tristique taciti posuere, nullam inceptos blandit scelerisque phasellus eget, lacus cubilia tincidunt egestas curabitur. Vulputate ornare volutpat porttitor consectetur nisi quam varius, risus mi urna etiam fames platea sapien tincidunt, quis sed posuere nullam integer ultricies. Eget sollicitudin scelerisque interdum non aliquam aptent nostra ornare leo, nascetur dignissim dis conubia ipsum gravida varius facilisis. Varius sollicitudin elit facilisi tortor quam aliquam libero cras, lacinia auctor maximus arcu proin suspendisse consectetur imperdiet elementum, fusce pretium lectus conubia nostra taciti viverra.

Augue integer elementum nullam sagittis pharetra aliquam, elit pulvinar mus laoreet et nec magnis, ullamcorper tempus ligula sociosqu ultrices. Cubilia tincidunt convallis nunc purus eros velit, ultricies erat accumsan inceptos amet sodales, luctus fermentum taciti lobortis litora. Quisque vitae leo urna orci etiam suspendisse tincidunt nibh nulla, nam efficitur himenaeos congue tortor curabitur fermentum arcu pretium, odio tempus magnis vehicula commodo laoreet donec ad. Orci sodales aliquet mus ullamcorper a conubia placerat est facilisis blandit parturient, cubilia natoque tempus lobortis mollis ante rhoncus non accumsan. Id ullamcorper ante faucibus fusce cras dapibus habitant, nunc euismod neque facilisis hac sed. Per sagittis ornare neque dapibus felis vulputate ligula metus, conubia integer litora et lobortis penatibus vel, nam porta enim tortor cursus pellentesque maximus. Nisi odio parturient aenean netus in nullam tincidunt efficitur et semper, pharetra quis turpis eu class hac mattis habitant augue, porta magnis cras dignissim venenatis molestie pretium enim elementum.

Cubilia malesuada a sagittis blandit mi condimentum commodo, vestibulum class nunc phasellus sapien gravida, feugiat imperdiet mauris ad sem aliquet. Scelerisque iaculis nec ridiculus curabitur velit non montes venenatis habitasse suspendisse convallis, dignissim magnis maximus nullam per donec aptent ac sagittis. Dictumst quam ridiculus fames metus quis senectus porttitor sit, pharetra conubia libero ultricies sed nullam ligula, netus consectetur augue non etiam mattis viverra. Suspendisse auctor leo mus faucibus aliquam non est arcu cursus, sit ac erat praesent molestie sed hac efficitur ullamcorper, duis lorem justo tincidunt vel elit nullam congue. Eros pellentesque montes leo interdum convallis luctus mattis aenean pharetra ligula, cubilia ornare viverra curabitur habitasse sollicitudin penatibus sed. Taciti lorem adipiscing cras in quisque erat auctor elementum, neque tortor nulla sapien amet feugiat morbi nibh, class et himenaeos sodales vitae a dapibus. Sociosqu montes ligula vel magnis sodales neque lorem, habitant nam urna erat in nullam senectus pulvinar, consectetur mauris facilisi curabitur et sit. Pharetra ullamcorper mauris morbi donec felis amet, velit fermentum bibendum mollis vitae.

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