Volume 190 - Issue 3
Why we need a national registry in interventional cardiology
Authors: Christopher M Reid, Andrew E Ajani and David Eccleston
Med J Aust 2009; 190 (3): 162-163. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02326.x
Published online: 2 February 2009
Published online: 2 February 2009
To the Editor: Scott was correct in his recent article to emphasise the need for an Australian registry for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs).1 To that end, we report an initiative developed by a voluntary collaborative group of interventional cardiologists in Victoria — the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) — which has provided a significant volume of contemporary data on the efficacy and safety of PCI.2
Since July 2004, data on over 9500 coronary interventional procedures in over 7500 patients have been collected into this registry, using data elements and methods based on those of the United States National Cardiac Disease Registry and the Victorian Cardiothoracic Surgical Database.3,4 Methods for data collection and analysis, and the format of data forms have been published.5 The data elements, developed by an MIG working group, have been peer reviewed and are currently under review for publication.
MIG has a formal governance structure with a constitution, steering committee and subcommittees that govern data quality, database development, research, publication and funding. Approval for the conduct of the registry has been obtained from the ethics committees of all participating hospitals; all patients enrolled provide informed consent for initial and long-term data collection in a manner similar to that used for the Victorian Cardiothoracic Surgical Database.3
Results from MIG to date show that PCI practice differs between Australia and the US, and that use of drug-eluting stents (DES) is safe and effective in reducing restenosis in patients with appropriate indications, leading to a DES usage rate of 30% in public hospitals.2
The MIG registry may provide an appropriate framework for a national PCI data registry. It satisfies most of Scott’s criteria, and many colleagues in other states have expressed interest in collecting similar data or collaborating in a joint registry. The limiting factor, as always, is funding. We join Scott in supporting the call for appropriate funding to be provided by government and professional societies to allow a national PCI registry to be established.
Competing interests
Chris Reid received support from Sanofi Aventis for a presentation at the European Society of Cardiology Meeting in September 2008.
References
- Scott IA. Why we need a national registry in interventional cardiology. Med J Aust 2008; 189: 223-227. <eMJA full text>
- Ajani AE, Yan BP, Clark DJ, et al. Contemporary treatment of in-stent restenosis and the incidence of recurrent in-stent restenosis in the era of drug-eluting stents. Heart Lung Circ 2007; 16: 269-273. 0_i1091855
- Dinh DT, Lee GA, Billah B, et al. Trends in coronary artery bypass graft surgery in Victoria, 2001–2006: findings from the Australasian Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons database project. Med J Aust 2008; 188: 214-217. <eMJA full text>
- Reid CM, Dinh DT, Ballah B, et al. Cardiac surgery in Victorian public hospitals 2004–2005. Report to the public. Melbourne: Quality and Safety Branch, Department of Human Services, 2006. 0_i1091859
- Ajani AE, Szto G, Eccleston D, et al. The foundation and launch of the Melbourne interventional group: a collaborative interventional cardiology project. Heart Lung Circ 2006; 15: 44-47. 0_i1091863