AbstractObjectivesThe objective of this study was to report procedural characteristics and adverse events on the data collected in the IMproving Paediatric and Adult Congenital Treatment registry.BackgroundThe IMproving Paediatric and Adult Congenital Treatment– registry is a catheterisation registry focussed on paediatric and adult patients with congenital heart disease who are undergoing diagnostic catheterisations and catheter-based interventions. This study reports procedural

more »

... and adverse events of patients who have undergone selected catheterisation procedures from January, 2011 to June, 2013.MethodsDemographic, clinical, procedural, and institutional data elements were collected at participating centres and entered via either a web-based platform or software provided by the American College of Cardiology-certified vendors, and were collected in a secure, centralised database. For the purpose of this study, procedures that were not classified as one of the 'core' IMproving Paediatric and Adult Congenital Treatment procedures originally chosen for additional data collection were identified and selected for further data analysis.ResultsDuring the time frame of data collection, a total of 8021 cases were classified as other procedures and/or multiple procedures. The most commonly performed case types – isolated or in combination with other procedures – were right ventricular biopsy in 3433 (42.8%), conduit/MPA interventions in 979 (12.3%), and systemic pulmonary artery collateral occlusion in 601 (7.5%). For the whole cohort, adverse events of any severity occurred in 957 (12.0%) cases, whereas major adverse events occurred in 113 (1.4%) cases; six patients (0.1%) died in the catheterisation laboratory.ConclusionsThe IMproving Paediatric and Adult Congenital Treatment registry has provided important data on the frequency and spectrum of cardiac catheterisation procedures performed in the present era. For many procedures, more data and work are needed to identify more subtle differences between case categories, especially as it relates to the incidence of major adverse events, and to further develop a risk-adjustment methodology to allow equitable comparisons among institutions.