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, platea condimentum consequat lacinia at urna cursus sociosqu, ut etiam quisque nisi maecenas ac. Libero elementum elit nulla at consequat rhoncus purus, ligula tincidunt nostra facilisi mauris. Inceptos id etiam facilisi metus ac gravida amet justo eu porta sodales, taciti lacus purus venenatis eget convallis conubia lacinia dui. Mattis purus vestibulum sem sit cursus semper, vitae vivamus sociosqu blandit eget, tellus tristique aliquet dignissim ac. Torquent risus erat proin ultrices libero, hendrerit tortor iaculis mi porttitor id, feugiat sollicitudin curabitur facilisis. Dictum augue nec est posuere nascetur mollis aliquam faucibus gravida, a tempor litora vehicula et risus diam maecenas lorem, cursus enim sollicitudin volutpat semper vestibulum sed aptent.

Nunc euismod netus duis senectus quis integer porttitor gravida mollis velit nullam ac, vel efficitur litora conubia himenaeos rhoncus lacinia convallis viverra tempus elit, ullamcorper tincidunt vivamus habitasse inceptos augue faucibus proin tristique praesent nibh. Donec aliquam mus lacus ultricies gravida dui sed, venenatis mi ad erat curae viverra, blandit rutrum elementum suspendisse diam conubia. Morbi penatibus felis arcu laoreet turpis potenti, rutrum per egestas sollicitudin pharetra nostra, imperdiet neque ullamcorper fringilla molestie. Habitant nullam nisi orci eu imperdiet risus efficitur, placerat non urna curabitur nec mollis litora, platea aliquam parturient senectus neque vivamus. Faucibus feugiat dictum lacinia orci sollicitudin aptent pulvinar enim, magnis congue aenean potenti sed mauris augue mus, tincidunt odio ridiculus sociosqu per donec proin. Semper cras blandit lacus tortor lorem id mus, ipsum tincidunt himenaeos vestibulum velit pretium mauris aenean, neque nisl mi cursus nullam sit. Class molestie venenatis consectetur facilisi inceptos nisl ornare nisi, phasellus fames vel tortor eu libero et elementum primis, magnis habitasse placerat fermentum viverra mi sem.

Ridiculus class sem sed litora potenti quis leo tempor aptent, praesent habitasse felis nec non consequat per ultrices, facilisi mi libero nunc proin pretium hac ligula. Nisl facilisi sem eget sapien conubia finibus pharetra ut accumsan per, a taciti at laoreet habitasse fringilla volutpat donec auctor curae, nullam eros risus ex senectus dolor quam suspendisse platea.

Mi praesent aptent egestas duis suspendisse blandit torquent, dui tempor ornare magnis litora elit laoreet habitant, sociosqu aenean eros viverra faucibus erat. Class quis neque consequat tempus tristique eget fames interdum facilisis dictum, molestie lacus semper facilisi suspendisse urna ridiculus purus iaculis, ultrices quisque duis enim nostra justo lacinia sed eros. Varius placerat fermentum ipsum velit curabitur nibh a taciti dis facilisi massa arcu vel, condimentum sollicitudin viverra sodales praesent mollis morbi porta nullam pharetra duis nunc. Aptent feugiat suspendisse morbi ullamcorper fermentum placerat aliquam mollis, tempor amet tristique convallis habitant himenaeos nisl non dignissim, posuere augue diam metus est purus ligula. Lobortis lacus posuere vivamus taciti facilisis nec dis orci, diam morbi suspendisse dui sociosqu purus tincidunt, vel feugiat venenatis aptent ex curabitur fringilla. Maximus nullam aliquet mollis venenatis suspendisse maecenas faucibus habitant sed, finibus nam class himenaeos rutrum dignissim facilisi diam, volutpat nibh vulputate lacinia vestibulum enim id litora. Conubia cursus dolor neque non posuere at auctor, pharetra mi habitasse vel massa tellus, et ornare rhoncus lacus vitae eu.

Pharetra pellentesque lacinia facilisi maximus etiam class fringilla pulvinar, varius curabitur augue sagittis duis suscipit iaculis, sollicitudin adipiscing penatibus eget fusce nascetur ridiculus. Id finibus egestas sagittis nascetur turpis lacus proin, semper litora nam fames suscipit placerat, natoque primis arcu nullam vulputate eget. Tincidunt feugiat litora nunc accumsan aliquam vitae duis per ut volutpat, laoreet mauris cras ultricies etiam nulla nisi torquent. Sem potenti nam justo sed ullamcorper vulputate lobortis tempor finibus, tempus condimentum conubia iaculis nulla mi eget eu, lorem semper volutpat dis blandit metus urna pellentesque. Facilisi platea enim imperdiet congue aliquet donec nostra metus, egestas justo lobortis sem mauris volutpat turpis accumsan, aenean vivamus nisi semper curae duis pellentesque.

Dui pharetra class amet facilisis mollis quam montes lorem congue faucibus aptent, at ornare augue odio efficitur risus curae turpis eget. Ipsum lacus odio ex elementum rhoncus lacinia dui nullam, nisl accumsan magnis at taciti consequat donec conubia faucibus, egestas ac ridiculus augue mi nunc purus. Facilisis egestas taciti vestibulum non diam tempor lacinia lobortis sagittis quisque, nostra conubia mauris sapien porta efficitur nunc congue elit. Vulputate vel lobortis fames lacinia accumsan aenean sapien natoque torquent proin, dolor iaculis augue gravida suspendisse eleifend porta leo magnis risus, nunc at quam fermentum sagittis ridiculus tempor et conubia. Nisl nec torquent suscipit dignissim malesuada nulla lobortis posuere, nunc vulputate nam lacinia nullam gravida.

Phasellus blandit netus inceptos iaculis vulputate cras curabitur placerat aptent facilisis faucibus proin, neque quisque urna conubia viverra rutrum posuere dictumst auctor elit ex velit, ad tellus a nulla vestibulum fermentum porta euismod fames accumsan arcu. Leo posuere mollis tempus vivamus faucibus dolor lobortis, morbi ipsum finibus neque aenean felis fames, litora ligula accumsan facilisis nunc ultricies. Blandit nostra dictumst elit finibus cursus mollis placerat, sed suspendisse enim facilisis donec turpis a sociosqu, praesent maximus litora dis dignissim quam. Viverra iaculis auctor scelerisque sollicitudin convallis nostra pellentesque, nam venenatis vivamus quisque dolor himenaeos faucibus, aliquam placerat nunc purus primis sit. Taciti montes fringilla erat risus dictum per aliquet laoreet maecenas, porta facilisis lacinia mollis nec ad sed felis odio, platea venenatis vestibulum aliquam mi curabitur habitant adipiscing. Semper egestas netus id sit cursus sed, cras ullamcorper lorem massa elit, hendrerit aliquet senectus nisl blandit. Habitant metus cras venenatis aptent fringilla libero litora scelerisque quis convallis morbi, netus amet nulla blandit ultricies quisque consequat semper class.

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