4.6 Article

Database queries for hospitalizations for acute congestive heart failure: flexible methods and validation based on set theory

Journal

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001942

Keywords

Phenotypes; Electronic Health Records; Heart Failure; Predictive Value of Tests; Algorithms; Validation Studies

Funding

  1. Merck Sharp Dohme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and objective Electronic health records databases are increasingly used for identifying cohort populations, covariates, or outcomes, but discerning such clinical phenotypes' accurately is an ongoing challenge. We developed a flexible method using overlapping (Venn diagram) queries. Here we describe this approach to find patients hospitalized with acute congestive heart failure (CHF), a sampling strategy for one-by-one gold standard' chart review, and calculation of positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivities, with SEs, across different definitions. Materials and methods We used retrospective queries of hospitalizations (2002-2011) in the Indiana Network for Patient Care with any CHF ICD-9 diagnoses, a primary diagnosis, an echocardiogram performed, a B-natriuretic peptide (BNP) drawn, or BNP >500pg/mL. We used a hybrid between proportional sampling by Venn zone and over-sampling non-overlapping zones. The acute CHF (presence/absence) outcome was based on expert chart review using a priori criteria. Results Among 79091 hospitalizations, we reviewed 908. A query for any ICD-9 code for CHF had PPV 42.8% (SE 1.5%) for acute CHF and sensitivity 94.3% (1.3%). Primary diagnosis of 428 and BNP >500pg/mL had PPV 90.4% (SE 2.4%) and sensitivity 28.8% (1.1%). PPV was <10% when there was no echocardiogram, no BNP, and no primary diagnosis. False positive' hospitalizations were for other heart disease, lung disease, or other reasons. Conclusions This novel method successfully allowed flexible application and validation of queries for patients hospitalized with acute CHF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available