Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T10:33:05.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making sense of congenital cardiac disease with a research database: The Congenital Heart Surgeons’ Society Data Center*

Part of: The International Society for Nomenclature of Paediatric and Congenital Heart Disease (ISNPCHD)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2008

Edward J. Hickey ,
Brian W. McCrindle ,
Christopher A. Caldarone ,
William G. Williams  and
Eugene H. Blackstone
Edward J. Hickey*
Affiliation:
The Congenital Heart Surgeons’ Society Data Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Brian W. McCrindle
Affiliation:
The Congenital Heart Surgeons’ Society Data Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Christopher A. Caldarone
Affiliation:
The Congenital Heart Surgeons’ Society Data Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
William G. Williams
Affiliation:
The Congenital Heart Surgeons’ Society Data Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Eugene H. Blackstone
Affiliation:
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America
*
Correspondence to: Dr Edward J. Hickey, John Kirklin Fellow, The Congenital Heart Surgeons’ Society Data Center, The Hospital for Sick Children, Room 4431, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1x8, Canada. Tel: +1 416 813 5184; Fax: +1 416 813 8776; E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Challenges inherent in researching rare congenital cardiac lesions led to creation of the Congenital Heart Surgeons’ Society Data Center (Data Center) two decades ago. The Data Center pools experiences from up to 60 institutions, and over 4,700 children have been prospectively recruited within nine diagnostic inception cohorts. This report describes the operations of our research database, with particular focus on analytic strategies employed.

Methods and results

A procedural log is created of all investigations and interventions, and reports from enrolling institutions are subsequently obtained. Cross-sectional follow-up is undertaken annually by the Data Center. All data are linked to the individual child, and quality control mechanisms ensure that completeness and accuracy are maximised. Specific advantages of Data Center analytic approaches include multi-phase parametric hazard analysis, re-sampling techniques for reliable risk factor identification, competing risks methodology, and propensity-adjusted comparisons. Virtues of applying these techniques to a research database are illustrated by clinically pertinent questions that have been addressed in place of what would be difficult through randomised trials.

Conclusions

The Data Center is a cost-effective, versatile tool for researching congenital cardiac surgical outcomes. Research databases are ideally suited to in-depth investigations of survival and functional outcomes. Multi-center propensity-adjusted analyses represent efficient surrogates for randomised trials. Well-designed observational prospective studies should remain a principle mode of researching congenital cardiac disease.

Keywords

Analysis of time-related eventsparametriccompeting risksbootstrap baggingresearch database
Type
Original Article
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 18 , Issue S2: Databases and the assessment of complications associated with the treatment of patients with congenital cardiac disease , December 2008 , pp. 152 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This manuscript was presented at the Inaugural Meeting of The World Society for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery in Washington DC, United States of America, May 3 and 4, 2007.

References

1.Castaneda, AR, Trusler, GA, Paul, MH, Blackstone, EH, Kirklin, JW. The early results of treatment of simple transposition in the current era. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1988; 95: 14–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Williams, WG, McCrindle, BW, Ashburn, DA, Jonas, RA, Mavroudis, C, Blackstone, EH. Outcomes of 829 neonates with complete transposition of the great arteries 12–17 years after repair. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003; 24: 1–9; discussion 9–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Williams, WG, Quaegebeur, JM, Kirklin, JW, Blackstone, EH. Outflow obstruction after the arterial switch operation: a multiinstitutional study. Congenital Heart Surgeons Society. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997; 114: 975–987; discussion 987–990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Kirklin, JW, Blackstone, EH, Tchervenkov, CI, Castaneda, AR. Clinical outcomes after the arterial switch operation for transposition. Patient, support, procedural, and institutional risk factors. Congenital Heart Surgeons Society. Circulation 1992; 86: 1501–1515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Norwood, WI, Dobell, AR, Freed, MD, Kirklin, JW, Blackstone, EH. Intermediate results of the arterial switch repair. A 20-institution study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1988; 96: 854–863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Trusler, GA, Castaneda, AR, Rosenthal, A, Blackstone, EH, Kirklin, JW. Current results of management in transposition of the great arteries, with special emphasis on patients with associated ventricular septal defect. J Am Coll Cardiol 1987; 10: 1061–1071.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Culbert, EL, Ashburn, DA, Cullen-Dean, G, et al. Quality of life of children after repair of transposition of the great arteries. Circulation 2003; 108: 857–862.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Williams, WG, McCrindle, BW. Practical experience with databases for congenital heart disease: a registry versus an academic database. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Pediatr Card Surg Annu 2002; 5: 132–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Jacobs, JP, Jacobs, ML, Maruszewski, B, et al. Current status of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 80: 2278–2283; discussion 2283–2274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Mavroudis, C, Gevitz, M, Elliott, MJ, Jacobs, JP, Gold, JP. Virtues of a worldwide congenital heart surgery database. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Pediatr Card Surg Annu 2002; 5: 126–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Maruszewski, B, Tobota, Z. The European Congenital Heart Defects Surgery Database experience: Pediatric European Cardiothoracic Surgical Registry of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Pediatr Card Surg Annu 2002; 5: 143–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Maruszewski, B, Lacour-Gayet, F, Monro, JL, Keogh, BE, Tobota, Z, Kansy, A. An attempt at data verification in the EACTS Congenital Database. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005; 28: 400–404; discussion 405–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Lacour-Gayet, F. Risk stratification theme for congenital heart surgery. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Pediatr Card Surg Annu 2002; 5: 148–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Jacobs JP, Lacour-Gayet FG, Jacobs ML, et al. Initial application in the STS congenital database of complexity adjustment to evaluate surgical case mix and results. 2005; 79: 1635–1649.Google Scholar
15.Sleeper, LA, Anderson, P, Hsu, DT, et al. Design of a large cross-sectional study to facilitate future clinical trials in children with the Fontan palliation. Am Heart J 2006; 152: 427–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Blackstone, EH. Outcome analysis using hazard function methodology. Ann Thorac Surg 1996; 61 (2 Suppl): S2–7; discussion S33–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Blackstone, EH, Naftel, DC, Turner, MEJ. The decomposition of time-varying hazard into phases, each incorporating a separate stream of concomittant information. J Am Stat Assoc 1986; 81: 615–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Daubeney, PE, Blackstone, EH, Weintraub, RG, Slavik, Z, Scanlon, J, Webber, SA. Relationship of the dimension of cardiac structures to body size: an echocardiographic study in normal infants and children. Cardiol Young 1999; 9: 402–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Breiman, L. Bagging predictors. Machine learning 1996; 24: 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Ashburn, DA, McCrindle, BW, Tchervenkov, CI, et al. Outcomes after the Norwood operation in neonates with critical aortic stenosis or aortic valve atresia. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003; 125: 1070–1082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Lofland, GK, McCrindle, BW, Williams, WG, et al. Critical aortic stenosis in the neonate: a multi-institutional study of management, outcomes, and risk factors. Congenital Heart Surgeons Society. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001; 121: 10–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Liao, L, Mark, DB. Clinical prediction models: are we building better mousetraps? J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42: 851–853.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Kong, DF, Lee, KL, Harrell, FE Jr., et al. Clinical experience and predicting survival in coronary disease. Arch Intern Med 1989; 149: 1177–1181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Ivanov, J, Borger, MA, David, TE, Cohen, G, Walton, N, Naylor, CD. Predictive accuracy study: comparing a statistical model to clinicians’ estimates of outcomes after coronary bypass surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2000; 70: 162–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Colan, SD, McElhinney, DB, Crawford, EC, Keane, JF, Lock, JE. Validation and re-evaluation of a discriminant model predicting anatomic suitability for biventricular repair in neonates with aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47: 1858–1865.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Hickey EJ, Blackstone EH, Lofland GK, et al. Critical left ventricular outflow tract obstruction: the disproportionate cost of biventricular repair in borderline cases. Paper presented at: The American Association of Thoracic Surgeons annual scientific meeting, 2007; Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
27.Brown, JW, Ruzmetov, M, Rodefeld, MD, Vijay, P, Darragh, RK. Valved bovine jugular vein conduits for right ventricular outflow tract reconstruction in children: an attractive alternative to pulmonary homograft. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 82: 909–916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Alexiou, C, Keeton, BR, Salmon, AP, Monro, JL. Repair of truncus arteriosus in early infancy with antibiotic sterilized aortic homografts. Ann Thorac Surg 2001; 71 (5 Suppl): S371–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.McMullan, DM, Oppido, G, Alphonso, N, Cochrane, AD, d’Acoz, Y, Brizard, CP. Evaluation of downsized homograft conduits for right ventricle-to-pulmonary artery reconstruction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 132: 66–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Karamlou, T, Blackstone, EH, Hawkins, JA, et al. Can pulmonary conduit dysfunction and failure be reduced in infants and children less than age 2 years at initial implantation? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 132: 829–838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Slater, EE. IRB reform. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 1402–1404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Kalra, D, Gertz, R, Singleton, P, Inskip, HM. Confidentiality of personal health information used for research. BMJ 2006; 333: 196–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Noumeir, R, Lemay, A, Lina, JM. Pseudonymization of radiology data for research purposes. J Digit Imaging 2007; 20: 284–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Anderson, KM, Odell, PM, Wilson, PW, Kannel, WB. Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. Am Heart J 1991; 121: 293–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Hartz, AJ, Krakauer, H, Kuhn, EM, et al. Hospital characteristics and mortality rates. N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 1720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed