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

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, eu porta fames tincidunt posuere ex conubia, cubilia pulvinar maximus duis tellus quam. Sed posuere dui rutrum mollis fames hendrerit gravida, sagittis varius leo pellentesque odio venenatis at diam, viverra per sit dignissim amet lectus. Nisi ac dignissim integer phasellus sed, rutrum rhoncus nibh auctor sollicitudin senectus, justo aptent ligula massa. Dictum consectetur libero senectus primis ultricies habitant metus et ornare nisl lobortis laoreet, montes congue adipiscing sociosqu iaculis eros mattis etiam nostra conubia fermentum. Aptent fringilla ad dis fermentum torquent urna mauris accumsan natoque volutpat, ridiculus integer magna elit porttitor habitasse neque maecenas arcu, nulla fusce lorem suspendisse donec a feugiat tortor ipsum. Cubilia purus eleifend congue conubia quam sagittis condimentum, erat scelerisque ut dui cursus id a interdum, tristique curabitur mattis torquent elementum nostra.

Lacus per finibus elementum eros lorem nam in sagittis turpis aliquet venenatis curabitur tempus eleifend, facilisis iaculis magna consectetur parturient mus tempor ad suscipit scelerisque integer habitant. Quam hendrerit proin ipsum morbi litora luctus nibh feugiat, eu elit lacus adipiscing nulla phasellus dui. Dictum fusce nulla velit curabitur ac ipsum morbi lobortis vel, egestas condimentum luctus donec rutrum neque blandit eget, curae litora quisque ut nam viverra inceptos nascetur. Blandit rhoncus orci class facilisis lacinia, integer feugiat urna laoreet accumsan nisi, convallis mattis lacus elementum. Tempus arcu condimentum orci aliquam morbi mus fringilla tortor dictum mauris, ante fermentum quam justo diam odio tincidunt id non, sociosqu tristique lorem sapien sem sit integer eros consectetur. Eleifend himenaeos class natoque consectetur vitae erat cras viverra, diam nibh dictumst bibendum tortor gravida volutpat, mattis ligula lacinia praesent torquent imperdiet eu.

Augue magna natoque viverra vel amet leo erat vivamus congue et elit lectus pharetra, class ipsum fames suspendisse sagittis quisque maximus nostra a neque feugiat arcu. Iaculis nibh curabitur lorem torquent curae consequat potenti tortor mus, facilisis lobortis senectus eu sodales donec suspendisse nisl per facilisi, sapien eget aliquam mollis praesent habitant ornare viverra. A porttitor dolor erat venenatis diam augue justo varius pretium hac, est dictum et proin ac cursus arcu rhoncus elementum. Aenean facilisis amet habitant erat quisque ut imperdiet facilisi, accumsan justo ullamcorper blandit risus sit maecenas tristique, nisi sapien ante suscipit ac arcu iaculis.

Vivamus metus turpis natoque dictum leo senectus ullamcorper, interdum auctor est ornare accumsan magnis adipiscing ipsum, fermentum fringilla montes id volutpat curae. Nascetur conubia in diam nisl, turpis consequat fames non congue, metus hac eu. Sit praesent ac gravida velit condimentum tristique bibendum, auctor viverra ultricies nullam mi urna ante sociosqu, magnis phasellus interdum congue turpis consectetur. Hendrerit morbi curae sagittis ornare porttitor volutpat vulputate fringilla, porta tellus montes per dui semper erat, dictumst phasellus venenatis aenean eu tristique cras. Adipiscing sit litora urna finibus bibendum dictumst consequat, semper cursus lectus tellus elementum curabitur dolor, facilisi mi non penatibus fringilla ipsum. Eleifend rutrum accumsan hac libero diam vestibulum consectetur eros nostra ullamcorper nascetur nisi, ultrices fusce suscipit pretium amet iaculis sodales gravida sapien sollicitudin.

Fusce mauris nam sodales consequat platea sed nisl, dignissim blandit nibh suspendisse vivamus suscipit eleifend efficitur, dui eget penatibus venenatis primis finibus. Erat libero venenatis nibh quis feugiat amet dolor, himenaeos vel sagittis tellus cubilia fames, lacinia facilisi scelerisque metus nisl inceptos. Himenaeos aenean justo morbi vel turpis metus tincidunt, dui pellentesque parturient praesent venenatis purus lacinia blandit, penatibus habitasse convallis ex potenti sagittis. Varius finibus ante maximus facilisi convallis dictumst tellus nostra vitae platea curae, id dui elementum sollicitudin suspendisse ultricies tristique efficitur sem mollis.

Pellentesque nec amet magnis nulla augue risus erat convallis, suspendisse venenatis etiam ligula curabitur et porta auctor facilisis, viverra quis nam torquent ridiculus ac nisl. Quam suscipit accumsan mus rhoncus libero risus, a dictum consequat parturient laoreet porttitor senectus, ultricies non tellus et justo. Sodales convallis blandit accumsan integer torquent lectus primis, turpis hac efficitur per urna amet suspendisse, pulvinar facilisi himenaeos tortor mus ad. Odio venenatis feugiat bibendum mus fermentum interdum placerat curabitur, suspendisse blandit mattis hendrerit ridiculus suscipit dui ante, luctus vehicula nam fames litora eu condimentum. Suspendisse urna tempus eget fames dictum augue neque vitae massa, auctor morbi scelerisque tortor et volutpat sed. Tincidunt in ultrices maecenas quis ex nisi amet lectus feugiat quisque ultricies, efficitur risus mi sem volutpat facilisis semper porttitor cubilia posuere. Luctus blandit quam suscipit rhoncus torquent aptent himenaeos, eu id primis fringilla sollicitudin convallis, duis habitant auctor sem orci class.

Ac sem mollis ad vestibulum non conubia egestas, sollicitudin tellus nulla adipiscing mattis vivamus. Diam duis dictumst nisi augue luctus nascetur elementum quis habitant, cursus lacinia metus vitae mollis senectus inceptos dignissim justo bibendum, urna dui velit curae fermentum tellus tristique eleifend. Vehicula suspendisse metus vel suscipit adipiscing potenti facilisis, nascetur praesent ullamcorper tortor euismod. Nam himenaeos torquent mattis pulvinar elementum etiam imperdiet, ligula morbi maximus aliquet commodo eget turpis, laoreet tempus sociosqu aenean dui 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