Skip to main content Accessibility help

Lessons learned in the use of clinical registry data in a multi-centre prospective study: the Pediatric Heart Network Residual Lesion Score Study

  • Carol J. Prospero (a1), Felicia L. Trachtenberg (a2), Victoria L. Pemberton (a3), Sara K. Pasquali (a4), Brett R. Anderson (a5), Kathleen E. Ash (a6), Jessica Bainton (a7), Carolyn Dunbar-Masterson (a8), Eric M. Graham (a9), Michelle S. Hamstra (a6), Danielle Hollenbeck-Pringle (a2), Jeffrey P. Jacobs (a10), Marshall L. Jacobs (a11), Rija John (a12), Linda M. Lambert (a13), Matthew E. Oster (a14), Elizabeth Swan (a15), Abigail Waldron (a16), Meena Nathan (a17) and for the Pediatric Heart Network Investigators (a1) (a2) (a3) (a4) (a5) (a6) (a7) (a8) (a9) (a10) (a11) (a12) (a13) (a14) (a15) (a16) (a17)...



Using existing data from clinical registries to support clinical trials and other prospective studies has the potential to improve research efficiency. However, little has been reported about staff experiences and lessons learned from implementation of this method in pediatric cardiology.


We describe the process of using existing registry data in the Pediatric Heart Network Residual Lesion Score Study, report stakeholders’ perspectives, and provide recommendations to guide future studies using this methodology.


The Residual Lesion Score Study, a 17-site prospective, observational study, piloted the use of existing local surgical registry data (collected for submission to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Congenital Heart Surgery Database) to supplement manual data collection. A survey regarding processes and perceptions was administered to study site and data coordinating center staff.


Survey response rate was 98% (54/55). Overall, 57% perceived that using registry data saved research staff time in the current study, and 74% perceived that it would save time in future studies; 55% noted significant upfront time in developing a methodology for extracting registry data. Survey recommendations included simplifying data extraction processes and tailoring to the needs of the study, understanding registry characteristics to maximise data quality and security, and involving all stakeholders in design and implementation processes.


Use of existing registry data was perceived to save time and promote efficiency. Consideration must be given to the upfront investment of time and resources needed. Ongoing efforts focussed on automating and centralising data management may aid in further optimising this methodology for future studies.


Corresponding author

Author for correspondence: Meena Nathan MD, MPH, Department of Cardiac Surgery, Bader 273, Boston Children’s Hospital, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Tel: +1 617 355 7932; Fax: +1 617 730 0214; E-mail:


Hide All
1. Pasquali, SK, Jacobs, JP, Farber, GK, et al. Report of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group: an integrated network for congenital heart disease research. Circulation 2016; 133: 14101418.
2. James, S, Rao, SV, Granger, CB. Registry-based randomized clinical trials – a new clinical trial paradigm. Nat Rev Cardiol 2015; 12: 312316.
3. Jones, WS, Roe, MT, Antman, EM, et al. The changing landscape of randomized clinical trials in cardiovascular disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 68: 18981907.
4. Roe, MT, Mahaffey, KW, Ezekowitz, JA, et al. The future of cardiovascular clinical research in North America and beyond-addressing challenges and leveraging opportunities through unique academic and grassroots collaborations. Am Heart J 2015; 169: 743750.
5. Vener, DF, Gaies, M, Jacobs, JP, Pasquali, SK. Clinical databases and registries in congenital and pediatric cardiac surgery, cardiology, critical care, and anesthesiology worldwide. World J Pediatr Congenit Heart Surg 2017; 8: 7787.
6. Zannad, F, Pfeffer, MA, Bhatt, DL, et al. Streamlining cardiovascular clinical trials to improve efficiency and generalisability. Heart 2017; 103: 11561162.
7. Lauer, MS, D’Agostino, RB Sr. The randomized registry trial – the next disruptive technology in clinical research? N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 15791581.
8. Jacobs, ML, Jacobs, JP, Hill, KD, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database: 2017 update on research. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 104: 731741.
9. Riehle-Colarusso, TJ, Bergersen, L, Broberg, CS, et al. Databases for congenital heart defect public health studies across the lifespan. J Am Heart Assoc 2016; 5.
10. Frobert, O, Lagerqvist, B, Olivecrona, GK, et al. Thrombus aspiration during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 15871597.
11. Gaies, MG, Jeffries, HE, Niebler, RA, et al. Vasoactive-inotropic score is associated with outcome after infant cardiac surgery: an analysis from the pediatric cardiac critical care consortium and virtual PICU system registries. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2014; 15: 529537.
12. Rao, SV, Hess, CN, Barham, B, et al. A registry-based randomized trial comparing radial and femoral approaches in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the SAFE-PCI for women (study of access site for enhancement of PCI for women) trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7: 857867.
13. Mahony, L, Sleeper, LA, Anderson, PA, et al. The pediatric heart network: a primer for the conduct of multicenter studies in children with congenital and acquired heart disease. Pediatr Cardiol 2006; 27: 191198.
14. Nathan, M, Jacobs, ML, Gaynor, JW, et al. Completeness and accuracy of local clinical registry data for children undergoing heart surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 103: 629636.
15. Clarke, DR, Breen, LS, Jacobs, ML, et al. Verification of data in congenital cardiac surgery. Cardiol Young 2008; 18: 177187.
16. Jacobs, JP, Jacobs, ML, Mavroudis, C, et al. Nomenclature and databases for the surgical treatment of congenital cardiac disease – an updated primer and an analysis of opportunities for improvement. Cardiol Young 2008; 18: 3862.
17. The Society for Thoracic Surgeons. STS Congenital Heart Surgery Database Data Specifications Version 3.22. 2013; Accessed 18 June, 2018.
18. Harris, PA, Taylor, R, Thielke, R, Payne, J, Gonzalez, N, Conde, JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42: 377381.
19. Hess, CN, Rao, SV, Kong, DF, et al. Embedding a randomized clinical trial into an ongoing registry infrastructure: unique opportunities for efficiency in design of the Study of access site for enhancement of percutaneous coronary intervention for women (SAFE-PCI for women). Am Heart J 2013; 166: 421428.
20.STeroids to REduce Systemic Inflammation after Neonatal Heart Surgery. Accessed 8 January, 2018.
21. Hill, KD, Kannankeril, PJ. Perioperative corticosteroids in children undergoing congenital heart surgery: five decades of clinical equipoise. World J Pediatr Congenit Heart Surg 2018; 9: 294296.
22. Frobert, O, Lagerqvist, B, Gudnason, T, et al. Thrombus aspiration in ST-elevation myocardial infarction in Scandinavia (TASTE trial). A multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical registry trial based on the Swedish angiography and angioplasty registry (SCAAR) platform. Study design and rationale. Am Heart J 2010; 160: 10421048.
23. Wachtell, K, Lagerqvist, B, Olivecrona, GK, James, SK, Frobert, O. Novel trial designs: lessons learned from thrombus aspiration during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in Scandinavia (TASTE) trial. Curr Cardiol Rep 2016; 18: 11.


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Prospero et al. supplementary material
Prospero et al. supplementary material 1

 PDF (51 KB)
51 KB


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed