ArticleOpen heart2025
Complications after complex device implantation: how important is implanter seniority?
Article in Open heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 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.
methodsA 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.
results47 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.
conclusionsThere 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.