Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-h8lrw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T03:32:58.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Lessons learned from linking two complementary databases: the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database and The Vermont Oxford Network Expanded Database

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2022

Jeremy M. Archer*
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA Congenital Heart Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Connie S. Nixon
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA Congenital Heart Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Livia Sura
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
Dan Neal
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
Jeffrey P. Jacobs
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA Congenital Heart Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Department of Surgery, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Jeremy M. Archer, MD, MS, University of Florida Congenital Heart Center, P.O. Box 100297, Gainesville, FL 32610-0297, USA. Tel: +1 352 273 7770; Fax: +1 352 273 5927. E-mail: jmarcher@ufl.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database and the Vermont Oxford Network Expanded Database are both large, international, well-established quality and outcomes databases with high penetration in their respective fields of congenital heart surgery and neonatology. Previous studies have shown the value of combining large databases for research purposes. Our aim was to examine the feasibility and value of combining these databases on a local level.

We included patients from both databases, cared for at our centre and born from 2015–2020, who had cardiac surgery as neonates or during the birth hospitalisation. We examined the number of patients from each database and overlap between the two. We compared cardiac diagnoses, surgeries performed, pre-operative factors, mortality, and length of stay between databases.

Of the 255 patients meeting criteria, 209 (81.9%) had records in both databases. The most common diagnoses in both were hypoplastic left heart syndrome, coarctation, and transposition of the great arteries. Surgical data were incompletely recorded in Vermont Oxford. Gestational age, birth weight, multiple gestation, mortality, and length of stay did not differ significantly between the databases, while the percentage of patients with an extracardiac malformation or genetic syndrome recorded was higher in the Society for Thoracic Surgeons group.

Larger-scale matching and comparison studies using these databases are feasible and desirable; for some variables, a record with data from both databases may be more complete. Specific attention should be given to inclusion criteria, reconciling different schema of diagnoses, and formulating questions relying on each database’s relative strengths.

Information

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Primary diagnosis of patients in the STS database

Figure 1

Table 2. Primary diagnosis of patients in the VON database

Figure 2

Table 3. Primary diagnoses of patients in the STS but not in the VON database

Figure 3

Table 4. Primary diagnosis of patients in the VON database but not in the STS database

Figure 4

Table 5. Data errors and lack of Specificity.

Figure 5

Table 6. Comparison of pre-operative risk factors.

Figure 6

Table 7. Unique features of each database.