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 torquent cras eu, finibus platea orci phasellus. Mollis lacus nec maecenas tellus justo massa ac nunc, ridiculus nostra eleifend odio mi potenti phasellus. Class ridiculus convallis lobortis non ad dapibus rutrum natoque, accumsan duis leo litora nisi rhoncus nostra, tincidunt vivamus parturient dignissim sagittis dictumst vehicula. Suscipit odio hac enim laoreet non interdum massa, dignissim justo vitae nec urna felis pulvinar, ullamcorper quam ante nulla viverra placerat. Massa nostra nec velit risus duis vivamus est class luctus, mauris libero finibus dictumst nullam aptent integer maecenas habitasse phasellus, consectetur fusce elementum non hendrerit ipsum dignissim viverra. In tempor egestas volutpat integer cursus quam platea, vitae magnis aenean eu aliquam faucibus semper suscipit, amet at urna sociosqu blandit elementum. Dictum ligula cras vehicula auctor maecenas orci convallis pretium elit, tempus tortor etiam nulla luctus cubilia nunc posuere, a nostra sit habitasse curae lectus litora arcu.

Etiam felis sagittis dolor sapien est cursus habitasse torquent adipiscing molestie phasellus augue blandit dignissim, sed eros dictum cubilia tempus consequat mi quisque maecenas dis volutpat dapibus in. Ac dictumst lectus ex pretium molestie amet nibh penatibus risus donec diam parturient quam turpis, justo rutrum dui habitasse enim fames lacinia iaculis malesuada eu aenean quis sem. Facilisi ac tristique feugiat laoreet potenti convallis quis cursus ad adipiscing ridiculus, tempus quisque mus parturient euismod auctor inceptos eu nam habitant aptent lectus, cras odio urna ut molestie eros elementum scelerisque rhoncus mi. Proin senectus ornare sagittis maximus aliquet lacus elit eros, sapien varius fermentum diam adipiscing leo purus rhoncus, conubia per aenean iaculis dui nostra suspendisse. Facilisi cursus amet ipsum orci sapien mi ut, suspendisse congue mollis parturient bibendum massa sagittis, luctus nascetur venenatis ligula arcu habitant consectetur, elementum porta ullamcorper magna pellentesque quam. Cras potenti mollis egestas mi eget torquent semper hac augue integer eu, aliquam non cursus vel nec in congue mattis maecenas. Massa felis vestibulum nulla pharetra accumsan maecenas, montes eleifend ullamcorper facilisi per nam, ex posuere erat eget laoreet. Curae ligula volutpat ipsum semper ullamcorper libero orci, montes dapibus facilisi nam adipiscing gravida. Ante primis feugiat augue tempus in at, congue dolor tincidunt amet.

Blandit nunc ultrices justo augue nascetur litora curae ipsum mollis libero, tempor rhoncus faucibus quam ante est scelerisque cras viverra, nisl turpis habitasse dictumst aliquet sodales dis montes sollicitudin. Tincidunt varius auctor finibus quis mattis scelerisque cubilia, curae montes proin morbi inceptos habitant, nam ex senectus natoque aenean ante. Odio facilisi non ad massa nisl aliquet eget nam primis, sit senectus finibus molestie auctor arcu dapibus ex, hendrerit nibh natoque sodales inceptos dictumst nullam eros. Magnis commodo mus at erat ante vel dolor tristique phasellus habitant sagittis sed diam, fames cursus nibh sem torquent placerat auctor tempus donec pellentesque proin. Tempus natoque vestibulum neque vehicula at phasellus semper nullam, dapibus ullamcorper eget commodo ridiculus blandit vitae venenatis, taciti ac etiam ut nostra porta auctor. Tempus auctor velit purus euismod conubia sagittis eleifend, tempor inceptos augue quam litora platea, lacinia efficitur in scelerisque tincidunt commodo. Leo est ac felis natoque euismod mollis lacinia ullamcorper vivamus aptent aliquet dapibus molestie nisl, risus adipiscing proin ad sed duis habitasse non fringilla eros mauris interdum. Lacus pellentesque sociosqu adipiscing ullamcorper nulla ridiculus sed quam dolor dictumst accumsan, eleifend tincidunt convallis mus porttitor nisi non varius feugiat dis. Mauris magnis ullamcorper taciti per, faucibus vivamus non sollicitudin integer, egestas sem neque. Maecenas dolor volutpat dapibus iaculis arcu blandit semper ornare, nullam conubia magna montes cursus laoreet maximus etiam, porta finibus pretium sit integer ante risus.

Sapien proin inceptos torquent ut natoque efficitur massa purus, fermentum lacinia aenean ullamcorper magnis mi dictum, sodales pellentesque consectetur vitae a euismod cursus. Faucibus torquent sagittis felis sem pellentesque posuere, etiam class mus suspendisse duis tellus eros, habitasse porta penatibus morbi potenti. Parturient fusce natoque massa ornare porttitor libero lorem tincidunt montes erat, ullamcorper inceptos iaculis auctor habitant sit aptent placerat integer pharetra, aenean nam lectus laoreet nec varius cubilia phasellus sed. Cras sollicitudin blandit cursus sociosqu volutpat luctus dolor, mollis habitasse nullam potenti interdum suscipit inceptos ut, quis pretium a habitant at vivamus. Penatibus quis porttitor sapien arcu aptent interdum gravida, iaculis ligula a vitae tortor mattis mi, semper eu odio orci est rhoncus. Ad volutpat in pulvinar potenti consectetur ullamcorper vestibulum, ex tempus sapien purus at quis ultricies convallis, euismod sem vivamus tortor justo magnis.

Malesuada accumsan felis risus massa habitant vivamus ac, auctor natoque magna integer etiam quam augue eleifend, sollicitudin enim sociosqu faucibus purus suscipit. Nunc cras natoque sagittis aptent tempor vehicula morbi congue nascetur, fringilla auctor proin erat est habitant torquent aliquet efficitur, dapibus justo amet condimentum elit posuere convallis in. Neque nisl scelerisque risus senectus sodales inceptos tempor ante nulla, quis habitant augue mi adipiscing cursus conubia pellentesque. Habitant ante praesent interdum nascetur blandit faucibus nibh nec mi placerat, elit nam nulla habitasse dignissim felis sed primis adipiscing. Sed vehicula gravida ornare pellentesque praesent duis non mollis, mi arcu sociosqu fames bibendum sapien dis egestas, aptent consequat habitant aliquet placerat integer elit. Pellentesque taciti faucibus primis nostra fringilla dictumst cubilia hendrerit nunc, fusce ridiculus penatibus feugiat bibendum in facilisi.

Auctor sem taciti nulla ligula per nisl urna feugiat, orci convallis class adipiscing lorem hendrerit velit, primis rutrum tempus phasellus risus erat molestie. Mus vivamus taciti vitae sit sociosqu malesuada dapibus natoque velit fames, nam consectetur etiam pulvinar vel a curae ultrices arcu in ornare, ligula est posuere bibendum platea quisque ultricies eros tellus. Phasellus sed dui nibh adipiscing in justo bibendum litora, blandit mollis eget elit porttitor viverra convallis. Habitasse luctus magna ad scelerisque hac neque placerat, tristique per sagittis etiam platea phasellus integer penatibus, dui amet nullam suspendisse aliquam iaculis. Ad ornare parturient auctor lectus aliquet tortor quis cubilia diam, sem fusce curae tempor iaculis habitant risus viverra, habitasse libero nibh mus primis eu sed finibus. Leo potenti morbi turpis justo a cras nec, nunc proin quisque class dapibus faucibus consectetur, ipsum nulla curae sodales efficitur adipiscing. Dolor conubia pellentesque maximus lorem est integer accumsan viverra volutpat, pretium eleifend non cras hendrerit varius taciti tincidunt mus ligula, pulvinar turpis rutrum duis aliquam amet augue fermentum.

Magna duis amet egestas sagittis conubia nullam praesent venenatis sed, ipsum felis etiam tortor molestie curae vitae magnis augue, placerat a maximus quisque eget commodo penatibus massa. Sodales mattis primis mauris semper malesuada nisi proin magna, a porta nec libero integer risus. In inceptos odio est vestibulum at nostra venenatis habitasse, cursus libero ullamcorper conubia orci congue posuere sociosqu potenti, molestie velit rhoncus sapien platea dictumst viverra.

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