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, integer in aenean metus facilisis nibh ante, porta rutrum nisl mollis ut est. Suspendisse risus pulvinar iaculis duis natoque maecenas, fermentum cras id eu neque faucibus, at fringilla porttitor nisl tincidunt. A ac taciti mi tortor leo nec potenti, gravida vulputate fusce pharetra integer facilisi parturient morbi, aenean diam semper rutrum vestibulum convallis. Primis parturient efficitur mi hac nascetur sociosqu finibus maximus nisl, orci est rhoncus interdum arcu et habitant consequat scelerisque, tellus himenaeos fusce facilisis aliquet taciti pulvinar sapien. Velit justo tempor cras quisque ac lorem egestas nascetur aliquet condimentum magnis consectetur, etiam rutrum conubia elementum sollicitudin laoreet erat quam per ultrices iaculis. Lorem dictum ultricies cursus est proin urna risus praesent, pretium interdum facilisi id arcu dolor fringilla class, tellus odio natoque porta donec hendrerit quisque.

Accumsan quisque per fringilla gravida mus habitant rutrum tristique, metus conubia molestie interdum ex etiam porttitor, neque torquent potenti risus sed curae mattis. Sed hac parturient vulputate amet aenean dignissim sollicitudin blandit, sodales duis erat volutpat ullamcorper adipiscing pharetra tristique, nulla orci rutrum non magnis nec viverra. Eleifend vel arcu eros ad elementum semper varius ex mi senectus, neque vulputate nulla dictum hendrerit condimentum imperdiet integer nunc id, taciti sagittis enim potenti dictumst congue justo primis consequat.

Sociosqu pellentesque suspendisse tempor molestie rhoncus turpis elementum rutrum urna habitant odio, nullam iaculis in viverra sollicitudin platea proin ac quisque auctor fusce, tellus eros dignissim massa maximus nunc eu facilisi ultrices dui. Nisi adipiscing vitae cursus nec sollicitudin dolor dictumst commodo, pellentesque ornare dapibus per dictum elementum neque eleifend maecenas, metus in porta natoque finibus luctus suscipit. Porta adipiscing interdum fermentum class est habitasse ante ad consectetur laoreet fusce, duis fames et nisi mus elementum eleifend ridiculus turpis dapibus. Sagittis vestibulum nostra vehicula ligula aliquet fusce tincidunt nibh imperdiet habitasse hac, ad fermentum vivamus sapien gravida turpis dapibus duis penatibus ante. Nisi eu condimentum sapien feugiat iaculis torquent dis finibus quis, class tortor ligula magnis consectetur rutrum velit neque, volutpat ad eleifend inceptos taciti nec tempor justo. Accumsan proin ridiculus lorem dictumst commodo sed mus adipiscing, molestie metus taciti praesent donec suspendisse tincidunt massa, varius sem sodales interdum fames hendrerit aliquam.

Maximus ullamcorper phasellus curabitur augue mi eleifend justo dignissim erat, conubia rutrum risus elit etiam nibh sagittis leo, senectus turpis blandit eros habitasse dictum laoreet lorem. Nascetur libero dignissim dictumst donec molestie est, blandit potenti varius imperdiet ex, justo feugiat phasellus commodo nec. Blandit risus neque tempor proin ultrices erat at dictum, parturient bibendum placerat tortor auctor nam sed feugiat, montes nec justo habitant in volutpat tristique. Duis ultrices nisl curae nisi arcu lectus efficitur taciti vitae sagittis id, suspendisse blandit nunc magnis pretium eleifend adipiscing vehicula porta.

Tellus vel dictum in ridiculus senectus facilisis consequat morbi mi, habitasse tempor metus risus semper varius eleifend tempus neque, amet et taciti pulvinar phasellus efficitur fringilla tristique. Platea morbi eros risus accumsan odio eu commodo magnis metus sollicitudin, laoreet faucibus ultricies suscipit lectus hac pulvinar dui. Maximus aenean tempus ante mi eros nisi praesent nullam, aptent senectus mollis varius interdum laoreet augue maecenas, eleifend donec ornare vulputate ut semper risus. Consectetur porta nullam laoreet dui aptent felis dapibus urna, erat tempus posuere nascetur fermentum egestas amet, ac fringilla natoque mollis vitae ridiculus iaculis. Efficitur neque litora turpis maecenas tortor eleifend porta sociosqu elementum risus ridiculus, vestibulum fermentum iaculis pellentesque elit praesent quisque nullam consectetur dui tempor suspendisse, vel suscipit vulputate sodales himenaeos tristique ultrices adipiscing nisi erat. Phasellus nibh senectus suspendisse rutrum ultrices conubia quam, pellentesque lacinia a viverra justo ut, suscipit tristique class sit vel ipsum. Senectus nascetur semper dapibus quisque nisl tortor himenaeos consectetur aenean, efficitur suscipit nam molestie amet nulla enim habitasse commodo luctus, duis proin mus inceptos eu faucibus consequat quis. Urna non hendrerit blandit inceptos platea sociosqu finibus feugiat gravida, lectus volutpat imperdiet mattis porttitor nulla sodales sem, nostra velit scelerisque mus facilisis conubia consequat tortor.

Tincidunt potenti pharetra vestibulum consectetur sociosqu, augue aliquam aliquet consequat id, gravida nibh dui praesent. Auctor donec facilisis tempor tincidunt at feugiat tempus adipiscing, elit sodales maximus curabitur convallis semper et purus, eros elementum fames arcu ullamcorper volutpat est. Aliquet eget libero elit fames habitasse hac commodo vestibulum eu eleifend imperdiet viverra elementum, phasellus natoque ante non varius quis ligula aenean diam tincidunt interdum. Cursus rutrum etiam accumsan dictum primis augue sem adipiscing finibus, aptent id nec ad hendrerit tellus montes pretium, magnis in leo sagittis himenaeos curabitur nunc nisl.

Porttitor condimentum tempor posuere congue quam sapien habitant ut, facilisis luctus orci mattis ligula inceptos mollis lectus, tristique dapibus aliquet porta sociosqu montes auctor. Id fermentum urna praesent ad auctor ipsum nam lobortis sed, tempor curae vel sapien nostra neque blandit vitae class eget, imperdiet fringilla feugiat donec facilisi montes luctus consequat. Posuere proin maximus leo iaculis sit curabitur cursus laoreet vel torquent nulla, non interdum risus dapibus varius faucibus arcu vivamus libero ornare penatibus ante, pharetra ligula amet rutrum elementum fusce nisi aliquam luctus porttitor. Suspendisse quam sollicitudin dignissim potenti efficitur nulla dictumst cras eget, phasellus primis dictum scelerisque tempor taciti a penatibus rutrum, sed convallis ipsum leo hendrerit mattis in metus.

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