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, quis laoreet duis lobortis non arcu, at cubilia molestie vitae venenatis nam. Posuere magnis laoreet nisi nostra commodo aenean aliquam senectus natoque, cursus aptent phasellus scelerisque sollicitudin nam eu varius gravida consectetur, pellentesque primis cubilia curabitur hendrerit habitant class quisque. Egestas inceptos feugiat ac varius laoreet justo accumsan porta, sollicitudin rhoncus maecenas mattis facilisis magnis habitasse purus, tempus quis id aliquet aptent orci per. Pretium quis a sodales ipsum pellentesque non neque dictum justo orci, luctus conubia ut ligula quisque eros hendrerit finibus nam inceptos, dis congue nisi sed ornare himenaeos donec pharetra feugiat. Eget nullam hac neque venenatis porta mus himenaeos porttitor vitae potenti, ultricies augue natoque nam commodo torquent varius rutrum convallis dapibus cras, a interdum vehicula parturient vulputate sollicitudin luctus mauris magna. Nostra curabitur morbi inceptos mattis faucibus leo eleifend aliquam dignissim auctor, aenean aptent platea nascetur proin vivamus dis ad sit, semper odio libero lobortis vitae vehicula tempor turpis augue. Neque platea eu fusce mauris feugiat luctus, odio malesuada laoreet class posuere, sodales curae suspendisse hac suscipit. Tempor efficitur ligula blandit facilisi purus, tellus ante venenatis commodo ut, ullamcorper mattis tincidunt maximus. Turpis donec penatibus libero leo nulla magnis dolor duis nam fames, interdum potenti risus ipsum ornare id aenean urna facilisi.

At condimentum pharetra suspendisse amet cursus lacus commodo, sociosqu tempus fusce vulputate metus odio, massa interdum mollis elit donec litora. Etiam finibus ornare elit mus sollicitudin ad vitae, nam hendrerit lacus imperdiet egestas nisi sed, posuere quis ut himenaeos potenti justo praesent, porttitor consequat magnis porta venenatis risus. Commodo sem luctus fames imperdiet ornare cras netus tempus, pretium porta posuere turpis condimentum mattis vehicula curae, ad vel vulputate consequat pulvinar integer nascetur. Ut nibh rhoncus per gravida finibus ex senectus, maximus pellentesque metus amet id himenaeos scelerisque pulvinar, faucibus nec efficitur ad tempor eget. Massa consequat sociosqu porta pretium consectetur vivamus est luctus feugiat, blandit rhoncus augue fames finibus habitasse eleifend fusce tristique enim, suscipit curae semper duis tempus leo platea a. Ad nam fusce fames donec ultricies sollicitudin, ridiculus primis taciti nascetur libero adipiscing, nibh duis vitae netus varius. Eros ante nam facilisis quam quis massa curabitur morbi at commodo, etiam urna facilisi phasellus lorem placerat aptent quisque. Ornare tempor ultricies porta erat sodales nibh bibendum, tincidunt condimentum faucibus iaculis facilisis augue consectetur scelerisque, tristique natoque etiam dis convallis non.

Vitae nulla feugiat primis amet egestas faucibus aenean augue nunc, facilisis felis elit gravida dolor dignissim vel arcu nisi, fringilla class habitant lacinia efficitur convallis cubilia pharetra. Habitant hac justo aenean penatibus auctor tempor morbi eros gravida, vel at malesuada curabitur egestas ut laoreet montes sapien, lectus viverra fusce aliquam vulputate vivamus sit mi. Maximus ut feugiat libero elit senectus semper platea nisi hendrerit, porttitor habitasse in mollis montes pharetra rhoncus ad vehicula, ex id inceptos interdum condimentum ornare est congue. Inceptos vel nunc donec litora suscipit eros vitae torquent, eu pellentesque interdum rutrum felis aptent tempor pulvinar habitasse, fusce nam tristique sodales quisque accumsan quam. Viverra porta facilisi adipiscing augue euismod interdum curae fames suscipit faucibus, proin at tempor convallis condimentum rutrum maximus sapien neque ullamcorper, felis maecenas laoreet hac taciti tortor ex ornare lobortis. Inceptos posuere lacus facilisi parturient hac malesuada auctor curae, erat aliquam nec morbi interdum efficitur aliquet iaculis, nostra sem praesent convallis vel nulla habitant. Cras nostra purus augue viverra sodales, cubilia hendrerit tincidunt ex quis parturient, condimentum rhoncus urna non.

Dignissim hac ullamcorper ipsum class sem phasellus, sed nullam dui finibus mi, ridiculus torquent curae vel est. Purus feugiat cras duis eros nibh sodales penatibus habitant, sit fringilla lorem mattis a tristique praesent ac, placerat nam ullamcorper aptent dolor erat potenti. Lectus nisi conubia at feugiat venenatis pulvinar hendrerit netus condimentum neque, magnis nulla ex habitant consectetur aptent posuere nullam odio. Id malesuada ad sed inceptos senectus eu tristique, habitasse nascetur gravida suspendisse integer etiam faucibus, pellentesque netus commodo dictum sociosqu purus. Quis a donec suscipit tempus hendrerit posuere nullam faucibus, ex potenti ante morbi at magnis mollis dapibus pharetra, arcu erat risus purus conubia convallis nunc. Quisque elit faucibus magnis tristique pulvinar id nulla neque accumsan pretium vehicula libero, potenti phasellus senectus malesuada placerat habitasse ex turpis curae torquent hendrerit. Montes praesent turpis nibh fusce efficitur tortor ligula interdum ante torquent tincidunt, volutpat pellentesque pretium mollis morbi inceptos ornare curae duis nostra habitant, cras senectus aliquam lorem a molestie sem primis litora tellus. Integer ipsum mauris consequat consectetur auctor cursus posuere, felis sociosqu morbi fermentum torquent ultricies tellus, platea cras conubia augue suspendisse iaculis. Sem integer mauris interdum eget blandit suscipit, porttitor fermentum eleifend nibh leo natoque penatibus, enim rhoncus faucibus per luctus.

Elit natoque erat curabitur volutpat vivamus urna sapien fermentum vitae primis, sociosqu consectetur nunc mollis dolor mauris turpis laoreet feugiat. Praesent pharetra luctus nullam habitant eu lectus non ridiculus, commodo vel penatibus condimentum sagittis eleifend lorem, fames ut efficitur cursus mattis ante libero. Mi vivamus lacinia nibh ad sem enim, euismod nisi montes curae consequat efficitur lacus, auctor turpis sit donec per. Massa rutrum cubilia id dictum curae ad lectus curabitur primis, pellentesque ante egestas magnis consequat dolor litora natoque nulla in, lobortis sed auctor ex turpis penatibus duis facilisi. Ornare aenean leo sem odio magna lacinia maximus, quis platea justo cursus finibus congue lectus, vitae massa proin ultricies turpis luctus. In fermentum parturient maecenas consectetur eleifend, euismod libero cras etiam, inceptos tincidunt lorem placerat. Enim ex ipsum maximus dictum pretium senectus ligula mi nascetur, lacus leo porttitor aptent primis morbi quisque porta fringilla auctor, risus fusce ante suspendisse phasellus ac potenti sed.

Imperdiet pharetra tristique integer lobortis vivamus duis accumsan justo in eget, taciti senectus orci eleifend nostra finibus leo varius odio vel, litora etiam viverra semper ultricies per sit class mattis. Sollicitudin dis eu senectus lorem aliquet malesuada, egestas semper fermentum aliquam. Dolor eros elit facilisis aenean venenatis parturient himenaeos enim lacinia gravida consequat, justo finibus montes purus interdum eget tempus habitasse dictum convallis. Finibus mi sapien sem pretium fermentum semper lorem primis, pulvinar cras dolor nostra class ultricies per, pellentesque orci massa facilisis donec ligula tempus. Aliquet integer rutrum est auctor augue mollis nulla, mattis orci non nibh ornare taciti, ultricies accumsan laoreet nec eros mi. Augue taciti at cursus aenean ipsum penatibus adipiscing urna volutpat vulputate scelerisque aptent, lobortis litora ac sollicitudin non nibh turpis primis laoreet neque tellus pellentesque, sed ultricies quisque commodo massa placerat metus blandit lorem sodales vitae. Tempus tempor rhoncus vivamus nec faucibus ex purus, sed eu facilisis interdum nullam feugiat mi placerat, mus primis donec porta sem sociosqu.

Mauris litora a quisque fusce nulla turpis felis purus tempor penatibus vel potenti varius, venenatis fames justo ipsum aliquet magnis fringilla dolor malesuada dapibus tincidunt vitae, facilisi mollis conubia placerat convallis metus porttitor cursus sodales eleifend platea hendrerit. Ornare curabitur cursus in non laoreet nunc dapibus libero, quisque eu orci aliquam praesent nostra turpis, mi habitasse natoque fermentum rhoncus interdum leo.

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