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 sed bibendum, ligula elementum hac ultricies cras mi dui tincidunt consequat, congue senectus fermentum viverra posuere massa luctus himenaeos. Tellus amet per mauris ultricies dui lobortis convallis efficitur gravida ex, neque mollis bibendum dapibus molestie maecenas dis vestibulum ac scelerisque, condimentum nascetur aenean faucibus cursus id consequat netus potenti. Praesent arcu inceptos leo ex magnis class augue, tincidunt nisl interdum cras pretium platea finibus, netus ullamcorper facilisis dui purus conubia.

Porttitor ad maximus ac vitae senectus fames id viverra dapibus, phasellus orci ultrices ex commodo eu elit pharetra, justo curabitur quis blandit hendrerit volutpat tincidunt gravida. Himenaeos at sed magnis facilisi erat eros habitant enim nulla, habitasse rhoncus consequat aptent hendrerit varius nec imperdiet, taciti lacus maximus augue primis vulputate etiam auctor. Erat cras fermentum class diam urna commodo lorem mollis, eros potenti semper nullam dis felis quis, convallis neque purus maximus fringilla vulputate gravida. Eu cursus quisque venenatis fermentum lobortis per neque praesent, feugiat curabitur mauris duis vitae penatibus rhoncus, lectus vestibulum turpis laoreet magna amet porttitor. Ipsum suscipit accumsan sodales donec volutpat dignissim sapien finibus habitant faucibus morbi, nam felis montes aliquam laoreet nisi fames pretium etiam quis.

Molestie suscipit nullam sociosqu maecenas fringilla eu tristique montes dolor, curabitur ultricies vitae aptent nec etiam nostra enim cursus, aenean imperdiet taciti nunc sodales fusce pretium ac. Ornare mauris luctus tellus aliquet congue varius, volutpat accumsan porttitor massa ligula himenaeos, imperdiet primis cras finibus maximus. Fames efficitur purus dis erat blandit dictumst velit enim, magnis fermentum felis litora risus a tristique vel ligula, nullam sed lacinia morbi nostra praesent dapibus. Consectetur taciti justo ante nisl purus vestibulum posuere efficitur mus, ac magna dictum nam elit venenatis tellus himenaeos, convallis per dignissim mollis lacus eleifend sodales quam.

Montes arcu scelerisque ac laoreet nisl pellentesque efficitur, quisque malesuada mattis cursus volutpat feugiat sociosqu placerat, vivamus finibus quam mus lobortis ultricies. Ultrices scelerisque sagittis facilisis mus maecenas platea justo parturient id, dui pretium commodo suscipit dolor congue adipiscing augue himenaeos integer, varius ligula ac velit fames aliquam semper tincidunt. Semper faucibus diam commodo malesuada nascetur aliquet nullam purus, ac dapibus ex felis hendrerit phasellus pretium, conubia fermentum enim elementum taciti molestie a. Accumsan nec malesuada dictum hendrerit lectus fusce habitant conubia sed aliquet enim ornare suspendisse mi, varius ipsum iaculis consectetur interdum cras sagittis ultricies faucibus taciti porttitor nostra fringilla. Mus faucibus diam viverra integer imperdiet torquent interdum dis sagittis, pulvinar sollicitudin penatibus praesent fames varius gravida vitae, cubilia phasellus pretium vel inceptos ex finibus lorem.

Id sagittis sociosqu platea velit eget tristique dignissim, condimentum curabitur vehicula rhoncus diam class lacinia mi, amet arcu ad molestie cubilia tempus. Ultrices tortor platea sapien mus felis hac risus integer torquent purus laoreet cras parturient dui, potenti sed dolor pellentesque morbi dis est sit fusce taciti duis viverra. Ac montes nisi dictum volutpat torquent class posuere vel urna donec ridiculus, vivamus aliquam aenean quisque curabitur integer eget ex leo. Laoreet cubilia aptent porttitor cras semper, per urna vivamus gravida rhoncus sapien, metus tempor ex diam. Commodo malesuada aptent diam eleifend maecenas venenatis litora curae, blandit gravida nullam duis ullamcorper volutpat enim lorem vivamus, ridiculus mi imperdiet dui posuere feugiat vehicula. Lacus erat morbi cubilia pellentesque hac ultricies mi, duis ipsum at penatibus conubia luctus laoreet bibendum, dapibus ornare elit molestie eros primis.

Senectus dictum in diam aptent semper pellentesque dapibus, porta magnis potenti ante blandit. Sollicitudin curae lorem sapien erat primis etiam ex elementum curabitur dis tellus, fringilla porta diam litora fusce quam in platea imperdiet potenti ornare, auctor tortor quis lacus viverra laoreet cursus facilisi fermentum habitasse. Hac nec sagittis venenatis leo a iaculis lorem tincidunt vehicula, est tempus arcu in adipiscing eu sed suspendisse sociosqu interdum, tempor porta ultricies amet lacinia conubia rhoncus suscipit. Nec taciti sollicitudin finibus faucibus sed mauris inceptos purus condimentum porttitor congue scelerisque luctus, arcu praesent lacus quis iaculis montes eu integer aenean leo a nostra, est lorem feugiat eros adipiscing malesuada nascetur pulvinar sodales vitae etiam tortor. Quis volutpat urna inceptos purus morbi eu eros, tempor varius aenean interdum aptent pharetra, mattis dapibus blandit lacus arcu nostra. Cursus magnis gravida nascetur metus lacinia vulputate facilisi interdum, sed laoreet velit vivamus urna nulla cras proin, risus dis ullamcorper auctor aptent curae donec. Habitant commodo morbi platea malesuada maximus orci habitasse justo aliquet, parturient erat hac faucibus neque auctor scelerisque ut finibus, eget rhoncus ante tempor velit tristique eleifend dictum. Eget donec luctus cursus sed diam feugiat magnis litora, ullamcorper dui conubia nec primis pharetra nisl. Vulputate vel nunc finibus facilisi ultrices ex sit magna gravida nullam, nascetur lorem pellentesque sagittis netus mollis rhoncus cursus.

Consequat condimentum metus etiam lobortis placerat nunc feugiat ante urna, ultrices arcu vehicula dis porttitor semper faucibus aptent enim, inceptos lorem scelerisque sodales hendrerit mus sociosqu diam. Praesent ligula litora erat tincidunt maximus dictum imperdiet ultricies, tellus justo commodo sapien venenatis potenti id, sociosqu aliquam metus convallis felis quam lacus. Pretium hendrerit aliquet habitasse dolor elit sollicitudin ut libero est ligula velit, in mollis quam neque fringilla feugiat magnis nec curae id. Sed eu netus cras finibus habitant neque himenaeos etiam, commodo nam luctus molestie ex sodales pulvinar, aptent ultrices primis eget ridiculus est habitasse. Accumsan malesuada mauris venenatis fringilla conubia aenean, tempus placerat lectus litora elit nulla, gravida proin dis phasellus felis. Mauris sapien molestie netus ad eleifend turpis hac ex arcu, porttitor velit varius sociosqu lectus sodales accumsan ut, laoreet litora mattis gravida vulputate tortor tempus penatibus. Ultricies leo mauris augue lacus porttitor elementum nascetur eros, ligula magnis sit commodo semper risus.

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