Paul A Scott, Antonio Cannata, Daniel I Bromage, Ian J Wright, Anish Bhuva, Matthew J Lovell, Chris Plummer, Mark de Belder, Mark Dayer, Francis Murgatroyd
{"title":"复杂器械植入后的并发症:植入者资历有多重要?","authors":"Paul A Scott, Antonio Cannata, Daniel I Bromage, Ian J Wright, Anish Bhuva, Matthew J Lovell, Chris Plummer, Mark de Belder, Mark Dayer, Francis Murgatroyd","doi":"10.1136/openhrt-2025-003428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The complication risk of procedures may be influenced by operator and institutional characteristics. Our aim was to assess whether supervising consultant seniority and operative volume, and hospital volume were associated with the risk of reintervention following complex device implantation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A nationwide population-based study was performed using the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research registry including all patients receiving their first transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator or cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) implant in England over 5 years (April 2014-March 2019). The primary endpoint was 1-year reintervention. We evaluated the association between reintervention and supervising consultant annualised complex device volume, supervising consultant seniority and hospital annualised complex device volume, using multilevel logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>47 630 implants were included. The 1-year reintervention rate was 6.1% (N=2916). There was no difference in reintervention risk with increasing supervising consultant volume (OR 0.89 Q4 vs Q1; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05, p=0.17). When CRT-pacemakers/defibrillators implants were analysed separately (N=26 108), there was an association between operator volume and 1-year reintervention, but this was of borderline statistical significance and only evident in the highest compared with the lowest volume quartile of operators (adjusted OR 0.79 Q4 vs Q1; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.98, p=0.03). There was a non-linear relationship between reintervention risk and supervising consultant seniority, with the operators in the middle two quartiles of seniority having a lower risk (OR 0.87 Q2 vs Q1, p=0.02; OR 0.81 Q3 vs.Q1; p=0.003) while the most and least senior operators had a similar reintervention risk (OR 0.93 Q4 vs Q1, p=0.31). Hospital volume was not associated with 1-year reintervention.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a U-shaped curve between operator seniority and reintervention risk for complex devices. Although there are several potential explanations, these data suggest that while newly qualified consultants may benefit from mentoring, all operators should continuously evaluate their outcomes and share them within their centre and more widely through the national audit.</p>","PeriodicalId":19505,"journal":{"name":"Open Heart","volume":"12 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12410664/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Complications after complex device implantation: how important is implanter seniority?\",\"authors\":\"Paul A Scott, Antonio Cannata, Daniel I Bromage, Ian J Wright, Anish Bhuva, Matthew J Lovell, Chris Plummer, Mark de Belder, Mark Dayer, Francis Murgatroyd\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/openhrt-2025-003428\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The complication risk of procedures may be influenced by operator and institutional characteristics. Our aim was to assess whether supervising consultant seniority and operative volume, and hospital volume were associated with the risk of reintervention following complex device implantation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A nationwide population-based study was performed using the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research registry including all patients receiving their first transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator or cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) implant in England over 5 years (April 2014-March 2019). The primary endpoint was 1-year reintervention. We evaluated the association between reintervention and supervising consultant annualised complex device volume, supervising consultant seniority and hospital annualised complex device volume, using multilevel logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>47 630 implants were included. The 1-year reintervention rate was 6.1% (N=2916). There was no difference in reintervention risk with increasing supervising consultant volume (OR 0.89 Q4 vs Q1; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05, p=0.17). When CRT-pacemakers/defibrillators implants were analysed separately (N=26 108), there was an association between operator volume and 1-year reintervention, but this was of borderline statistical significance and only evident in the highest compared with the lowest volume quartile of operators (adjusted OR 0.79 Q4 vs Q1; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.98, p=0.03). There was a non-linear relationship between reintervention risk and supervising consultant seniority, with the operators in the middle two quartiles of seniority having a lower risk (OR 0.87 Q2 vs Q1, p=0.02; OR 0.81 Q3 vs.Q1; p=0.003) while the most and least senior operators had a similar reintervention risk (OR 0.93 Q4 vs Q1, p=0.31). Hospital volume was not associated with 1-year reintervention.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a U-shaped curve between operator seniority and reintervention risk for complex devices. Although there are several potential explanations, these data suggest that while newly qualified consultants may benefit from mentoring, all operators should continuously evaluate their outcomes and share them within their centre and more widely through the national audit.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19505,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Heart\",\"volume\":\"12 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12410664/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Heart\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2025-003428\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Heart","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2025-003428","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:手术的并发症风险可能受到操作者和机构特点的影响。我们的目的是评估监督顾问的资历、手术量和医院量是否与复杂装置植入后再干预的风险相关。方法:使用国家心血管结局研究所登记处进行了一项全国性的基于人群的研究,包括所有在英国接受首次经静脉植入式心律转复除颤器或心脏再同步治疗(CRT)植入的患者,时间超过5年(2014年4月- 2019年3月)。主要终点为1年再干预。我们使用多水平logistic回归评估了再干预与督导医师年化复杂器械量、督导医师资历和医院年化复杂器械量之间的关系。结果:共纳入种植体47 630颗。1年再干预率为6.1% (N=2916)。再干预风险随督导顾问数量的增加无差异(OR 0.89 Q4 vs Q1; 95% CI 0.76 ~ 1.05, p=0.17)。当分别分析crt起搏器/除颤器植入物时(N=26 108),操作人员体积与1年再干预之间存在关联,但这具有临界统计学意义,并且仅在操作人员体积最高的四分位数与体积最低的四分位数相比明显(调整后的OR为0.79 Q4 vs Q1; 95% CI为0.63至0.98,p=0.03)。再干预风险与督导顾问的资历之间存在非线性关系,资历中间两个四分位数的督导顾问的风险较低(OR 0.87 Q2 vs.Q1, p=0.02; OR 0.81 Q3 vs.Q1, p=0.003),而资历最高和资历最低的督导顾问的再干预风险相似(OR 0.93 Q4 vs.Q1, p=0.31)。医院容量与1年再干预无关。结论:操作人员年资与复杂器械再干预风险呈u型曲线关系。虽然有几种可能的解释,但这些数据表明,虽然新合格的咨询师可能会从指导中受益,但所有运营商都应该不断评估他们的结果,并在中心内部以及通过国家审计更广泛地分享这些结果。
Complications after complex device implantation: how important is implanter seniority?
Background: The complication risk of procedures may be influenced by operator and institutional characteristics. Our aim was to assess whether supervising consultant seniority and operative volume, and hospital volume were associated with the risk of reintervention following complex device implantation.
Methods: A nationwide population-based study was performed using the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research registry including all patients receiving their first transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator or cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) implant in England over 5 years (April 2014-March 2019). The primary endpoint was 1-year reintervention. We evaluated the association between reintervention and supervising consultant annualised complex device volume, supervising consultant seniority and hospital annualised complex device volume, using multilevel logistic regression.
Results: 47 630 implants were included. The 1-year reintervention rate was 6.1% (N=2916). There was no difference in reintervention risk with increasing supervising consultant volume (OR 0.89 Q4 vs Q1; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05, p=0.17). When CRT-pacemakers/defibrillators implants were analysed separately (N=26 108), there was an association between operator volume and 1-year reintervention, but this was of borderline statistical significance and only evident in the highest compared with the lowest volume quartile of operators (adjusted OR 0.79 Q4 vs Q1; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.98, p=0.03). There was a non-linear relationship between reintervention risk and supervising consultant seniority, with the operators in the middle two quartiles of seniority having a lower risk (OR 0.87 Q2 vs Q1, p=0.02; OR 0.81 Q3 vs.Q1; p=0.003) while the most and least senior operators had a similar reintervention risk (OR 0.93 Q4 vs Q1, p=0.31). Hospital volume was not associated with 1-year reintervention.
Conclusions: There is a U-shaped curve between operator seniority and reintervention risk for complex devices. Although there are several potential explanations, these data suggest that while newly qualified consultants may benefit from mentoring, all operators should continuously evaluate their outcomes and share them within their centre and more widely through the national audit.
期刊介绍:
Open Heart is an online-only, open access cardiology journal that aims to be “open” in many ways: open access (free access for all readers), open peer review (unblinded peer review) and open data (data sharing is encouraged). The goal is to ensure maximum transparency and maximum impact on research progress and patient care. The journal is dedicated to publishing high quality, peer reviewed medical research in all disciplines and therapeutic areas of cardiovascular medicine. Research is published across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Opinionated discussions on controversial topics are welcomed. Open Heart aims to operate a fast submission and review process with continuous publication online, to ensure timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal adheres to a rigorous and transparent peer review process, and all articles go through a statistical assessment to ensure robustness of the analyses. Open Heart is an official journal of the British Cardiovascular Society.