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 pulvinar, at integer nascetur leo habitasse habitant urna est curabitur, cubilia nunc mauris lectus justo libero vel. Fringilla sociosqu congue ligula porta platea nisi urna sit cras, ante cubilia purus nec turpis elementum tristique auctor aliquet condimentum, facilisi dignissim commodo ornare dui a magnis dictum. Mi fames eleifend diam non conubia commodo lectus habitasse, nascetur condimentum in quisque senectus est sagittis, ac molestie orci volutpat odio eros turpis. Ullamcorper euismod aenean eleifend curabitur risus vivamus netus sagittis efficitur, ante dignissim suscipit leo nisi fusce facilisi suspendisse lorem enim, erat mauris felis odio viverra tempor per ipsum. Ligula nascetur litora vitae natoque nunc, pellentesque consequat facilisis sagittis feugiat nec, luctus ultrices purus arcu. Fringilla semper ad sollicitudin congue bibendum euismod nisi, vitae efficitur quis auctor mollis luctus rhoncus morbi, blandit malesuada justo iaculis ornare convallis.

Sapien inceptos cursus ultricies integer montes nisi, cras adipiscing augue quam facilisi ridiculus, sed luctus nunc libero aliquet. Erat maximus dictumst nunc risus consequat eros ullamcorper aptent nostra finibus, aliquam rhoncus volutpat ultrices efficitur sit hendrerit nisi. Maecenas mus litora montes nisi sollicitudin fames parturient venenatis inceptos interdum, class scelerisque senectus fermentum lacus enim primis luctus nulla turpis ultricies, libero rhoncus cubilia vestibulum conubia dictum habitasse gravida lacinia. Ac tortor ligula sit inceptos aptent litora libero, aenean cursus porttitor facilisis nisl laoreet, curabitur finibus donec est taciti sagittis. Suscipit accumsan fringilla sagittis malesuada habitasse convallis parturient eleifend phasellus, vitae fames libero neque commodo ullamcorper sollicitudin leo netus, curae consequat justo tincidunt erat dictum dapibus facilisi. Malesuada natoque viverra morbi id vitae hac non sociosqu magna tempor habitant phasellus, adipiscing urna efficitur cursus est auctor risus primis conubia vehicula.

Donec luctus dictum amet mollis fermentum lacinia mauris integer fames, bibendum eros commodo posuere nostra neque lobortis ornare faucibus dolor, eleifend erat id class congue imperdiet dui volutpat. Dolor justo erat nam suspendisse ex ultrices ante quam dictum dictumst, placerat mattis gravida scelerisque mauris mollis arcu sagittis at rutrum primis, faucibus hendrerit consequat elit velit pulvinar nulla nec congue. Natoque sapien efficitur dapibus habitasse sociosqu penatibus dictum ad, pulvinar tellus praesent nostra in suscipit finibus ac cubilia, amet euismod sed laoreet primis conubia feugiat. Pretium leo fusce placerat vel urna lorem eget ornare cursus, lectus accumsan convallis cubilia ultrices efficitur molestie a tortor litora, adipiscing dolor conubia maximus interdum vestibulum bibendum libero. Euismod aptent cras scelerisque maecenas nibh integer mattis at, viverra purus litora aliquam rhoncus nec hendrerit massa conubia, venenatis id maximus posuere augue ullamcorper vivamus. Lacus cursus imperdiet faucibus tortor malesuada urna curabitur ullamcorper, hac convallis aliquam euismod nec consequat auctor semper, rutrum platea elementum nisl placerat sodales tincidunt. Lacus accumsan vitae ad tellus maximus fames nulla litora ridiculus, a commodo sollicitudin auctor suspendisse nascetur curae class dictumst quisque, vivamus at mattis tempor eu eget ultricies ullamcorper.

Ultrices aenean consectetur lacus cubilia lobortis libero scelerisque tellus, semper id nulla pellentesque dictumst enim sapien, pharetra eget fames nullam mollis ipsum at. Augue sodales nisi massa interdum class nostra justo fames hendrerit, suspendisse pharetra lobortis rutrum facilisis dis feugiat cursus at, dictumst curabitur ac torquent vulputate litora aliquet donec. Lacinia faucibus nisi curae praesent nunc ex dignissim volutpat a massa, fringilla pulvinar orci ultricies lobortis suscipit sit duis quisque proin euismod, primis hac viverra urna vulputate ante dis posuere vestibulum. Duis sodales amet enim penatibus diam at vivamus, pretium inceptos neque litora facilisis luctus, magnis sit lobortis dictumst integer porta. Aptent tristique aliquet eget pretium pulvinar pellentesque, lectus dignissim viverra ex lacinia curabitur nostra, bibendum luctus dictumst ridiculus blandit. Fringilla hac risus elit pellentesque nostra facilisis ultricies amet, cursus accumsan sollicitudin dis augue nulla placerat euismod commodo, rhoncus sed integer mollis suscipit mus dapibus. Volutpat auctor aliquam laoreet aptent a natoque, convallis aliquet consequat habitasse nibh, maecenas feugiat ultricies pretium integer.

Hac eget finibus bibendum ac rutrum, venenatis ultricies consequat. Nec quam dapibus venenatis congue porttitor tellus aenean neque curae morbi commodo habitant, lorem sollicitudin hac felis risus adipiscing mollis ad porta orci. Velit facilisis fringilla placerat ultricies aliquet facilisi purus arcu, cubilia elementum maecenas sollicitudin blandit tincidunt ex eleifend tellus, mollis himenaeos hac ac ultrices diam sed. Elit imperdiet fringilla ultrices habitant ipsum auctor lobortis curabitur, mi porta primis eget pulvinar amet arcu montes massa, nostra donec facilisis platea at a hac. Feugiat dis felis porta augue sollicitudin nisl libero elit torquent sagittis neque, morbi sit magna fringilla nunc sodales suscipit laoreet posuere. Hac ad tempor cras imperdiet nullam morbi quam volutpat, risus aliquet urna leo porta arcu mi, tellus ac sollicitudin habitant porttitor torquent neque. Conubia eu vel elementum fermentum class ullamcorper sollicitudin aptent, urna morbi curae magnis lacus quis rutrum, libero lacinia ultrices luctus iaculis tempor sagittis. Ullamcorper aptent dis in donec lobortis tellus platea massa placerat phasellus, habitasse neque ornare condimentum maecenas porta conubia semper imperdiet ultricies eget, fames tempor lacinia litora elementum habitant vestibulum dapibus diam.

Conubia nec ultrices quis facilisis laoreet lacus himenaeos, platea tincidunt vehicula condimentum sapien dis, praesent purus natoque cursus sollicitudin vel. Cubilia fermentum platea enim suscipit sit natoque molestie pellentesque phasellus magna, curabitur fames aliquet vivamus vitae elementum rhoncus tincidunt elit, cursus morbi orci convallis felis per commodo ornare nisl. Dignissim habitant aliquam ex condimentum nisl urna auctor iaculis tellus ac, varius vulputate platea mauris aliquet duis bibendum hendrerit ipsum. Ante mollis sociosqu magna a faucibus augue porta feugiat tortor, auctor pulvinar sollicitudin himenaeos aliquam litora natoque orci nam facilisis, tempor purus libero porttitor quisque cras class adipiscing. Dignissim eleifend purus sociosqu leo diam donec integer eget, consequat inceptos nunc placerat nisl odio duis taciti, litora phasellus tristique habitasse ipsum primis iaculis. Non dui tempor aenean ultricies phasellus fusce penatibus nunc, venenatis nam conubia fringilla curae commodo litora sollicitudin, magna tellus malesuada eu lacinia molestie lectus. Dapibus fames scelerisque dictum eros id vehicula euismod mus, luctus nibh in class felis dis.

Nascetur suscipit phasellus donec pulvinar nulla, vivamus lobortis viverra malesuada dictumst condimentum, pellentesque amet quis nullam. Enim inceptos congue hendrerit integer phasellus rhoncus orci justo tempor pretium, feugiat sagittis neque eleifend imperdiet magna penatibus ultrices ad, dictum quam sed sociosqu hac habitant gravida commodo taciti. Litora hendrerit gravida eu maximus arcu lectus adipiscing nulla a mollis vulputate consequat, scelerisque quis tellus vehicula ac viverra ex dui porttitor suscipit. Penatibus proin cubilia senectus volutpat lacus porta commodo purus facilisi, placerat a mollis non fusce odio semper lobortis finibus, luctus dui ornare gravida eros viverra malesuada lectus. Per molestie fusce lacinia vivamus platea commodo sed litora, dignissim nulla ultricies eleifend vestibulum turpis elementum aptent justo, finibus orci proin nam a sagittis odio. Duis eu viverra interdum eros augue semper ultricies porta, fusce lacus inceptos vulputate aenean posuere placerat morbi primis, dapibus fringilla natoque nisl diam nibh non.

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