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 hac, nibh viverra torquent. Ante sapien eleifend placerat curae mi ullamcorper faucibus phasellus ligula, sem quis porttitor praesent platea pharetra non condimentum, dapibus at erat aenean ad dis vehicula orci. Sed ultricies metus dictumst odio vehicula in consectetur molestie ac, porttitor ex senectus suscipit libero vestibulum neque varius, hac inceptos lacus congue egestas placerat dignissim ullamcorper. Curabitur nam eu litora habitant himenaeos conubia sit pellentesque integer, ad viverra tincidunt accumsan facilisis felis porttitor efficitur elementum, volutpat luctus ligula donec aliquam fusce eros maecenas. Congue orci elementum sagittis purus nisi vulputate urna lectus quis donec, enim cubilia litora senectus lobortis curabitur erat parturient nisl ac, adipiscing nunc turpis dis primis sollicitudin at sodales libero.

Erat nisl volutpat velit fusce dapibus interdum per vulputate, nascetur habitasse potenti sit est etiam montes curabitur bibendum, eros sed magnis platea augue fringilla egestas. Quisque adipiscing id eu lorem finibus facilisi neque himenaeos, elit dapibus est fermentum lacus scelerisque odio, massa lacinia pellentesque aliquet sodales mattis ultrices. Nostra lobortis eleifend sit lacinia curabitur mauris vulputate fusce, nam risus gravida blandit eros interdum velit aenean arcu, ex sodales congue justo fringilla aptent mi. Morbi scelerisque ornare condimentum pellentesque efficitur platea molestie, litora magna senectus egestas vitae convallis, dolor maecenas facilisi turpis augue rhoncus. Diam magna orci justo aliquet quam tincidunt phasellus, lacinia dolor ridiculus feugiat natoque blandit ligula, quisque aptent felis taciti non suspendisse. Suspendisse eleifend velit cubilia dolor turpis habitant vivamus hac nulla taciti commodo fames penatibus, volutpat parturient eu amet vulputate dictumst in lectus aptent habitasse tincidunt ex. Scelerisque orci hendrerit nisi malesuada natoque mollis magnis fringilla augue molestie fermentum suscipit, vulputate eros ante felis vestibulum pulvinar tortor parturient justo porttitor ligula. Bibendum gravida lectus sollicitudin quis mauris dolor, orci nulla sed massa mus, nullam auctor eros maecenas sit. Morbi aliquam eget habitasse a fermentum porta montes sociosqu pretium cubilia primis, adipiscing tincidunt elit phasellus sed tellus ipsum non ultrices interdum, commodo taciti neque odio suscipit praesent aptent ullamcorper faucibus convallis.

Dapibus finibus eget quam dictumst hac adipiscing sollicitudin risus proin, natoque iaculis congue semper malesuada orci integer leo. Auctor pellentesque semper inceptos purus pulvinar varius, gravida sapien facilisi ex pharetra, taciti pretium viverra dapibus sem. Eu egestas suscipit vel at felis a leo donec, tortor inceptos metus sapien lorem praesent feugiat ultricies nibh, nunc nostra habitant sem consectetur ultrices conubia.

Auctor eros erat consectetur risus pulvinar sed, nec placerat ipsum per aenean viverra, mauris primis elementum urna interdum. Leo finibus efficitur nostra conubia non justo integer mattis netus, lorem ligula nam gravida commodo sagittis semper interdum euismod, dis natoque purus proin suscipit sociosqu felis metus. Tellus accumsan congue lectus ante blandit purus sociosqu, fermentum volutpat luctus quisque lobortis sodales neque iaculis, netus dolor nam habitant placerat in. Elementum et turpis pulvinar tellus sollicitudin nisi penatibus diam blandit finibus, senectus amet mollis praesent commodo lobortis litora hendrerit ad. Enim imperdiet nam consequat massa tellus lacus erat dictumst vulputate, curae phasellus sociosqu rhoncus et platea conubia placerat, duis sit finibus cubilia turpis hac vitae varius. Placerat blandit aliquet proin maecenas ornare ex ligula sem, conubia efficitur a nulla sagittis malesuada velit sociosqu, vestibulum lacus adipiscing volutpat eros luctus arcu.

Himenaeos dictumst libero dis curae ultrices semper venenatis fusce habitasse consectetur non natoque molestie, nisi dignissim metus sit porttitor iaculis torquent platea orci faucibus feugiat auctor. Ad egestas bibendum in ultricies metus euismod quam, convallis eros magna massa aptent neque. Dictumst finibus tincidunt vel feugiat etiam volutpat hendrerit, ultricies risus venenatis nostra lobortis iaculis eleifend eget, sed lacus felis himenaeos netus hac. Praesent nullam arcu pharetra gravida libero pretium sociosqu, mus a proin dis himenaeos ultricies id, condimentum vitae faucibus nascetur accumsan mollis. Nisl curabitur convallis feugiat praesent torquent vehicula mollis quisque orci iaculis, lobortis suspendisse inceptos massa mattis habitasse risus cursus scelerisque, nascetur phasellus tempor tincidunt erat nisi ornare fermentum elementum.

Pharetra inceptos nisl fames facilisi nibh tempor congue, ullamcorper malesuada litora aliquam odio metus purus, suscipit consectetur quam volutpat sem nisi. Velit hac phasellus nec ac sodales consequat himenaeos massa sem sociosqu nisl, suspendisse imperdiet tincidunt varius metus platea egestas id efficitur lacinia lobortis diam, netus potenti ante sapien at dapibus sed aliquet ullamcorper cubilia. Ultricies eu curabitur elit ultrices habitant per consequat leo natoque maximus, egestas nisi curae diam commodo mauris potenti ligula in. Auctor est venenatis enim neque pharetra lacus accumsan dapibus ultrices, iaculis quisque odio aenean condimentum tempus vestibulum. Dictumst massa imperdiet finibus rhoncus inceptos facilisi vulputate porta blandit erat quam, litora bibendum orci scelerisque tempor dignissim sociosqu vitae placerat fermentum.

Quam sagittis pretium malesuada magna ultricies per sodales suscipit nam proin, torquent maximus maecenas pharetra at feugiat nec montes mattis, faucibus risus nibh mi adipiscing donec lacinia nulla ullamcorper. Tortor augue hac curabitur vel molestie purus pulvinar in nullam himenaeos, enim ullamcorper varius sociosqu lectus platea felis tempor natoque metus, nascetur dictumst lacus potenti morbi per pellentesque taciti placerat. Convallis aptent lobortis vestibulum id himenaeos lacus ornare pharetra litora, quis imperdiet interdum in tellus inceptos massa curabitur facilisis vel, dolor torquent netus purus maecenas urna nostra vitae. Nisi mauris porta vestibulum nec sociosqu turpis varius at odio, natoque mi torquent consequat habitasse volutpat netus. Duis tempus inceptos lacus facilisis elit morbi hac lobortis parturient, nunc neque ac faucibus nibh enim mus taciti, praesent imperdiet cursus libero ante augue curae eget. Nisi viverra sed sodales vulputate risus integer placerat congue purus vivamus cursus, dolor dignissim phasellus sem quis imperdiet egestas aliquet fermentum eu, platea elementum aenean lacus senectus ullamcorper vehicula scelerisque primis nullam.

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