Santu Rana1, Truyen Tran1, Wei Luo1, Dinh Phung1, Richard L Kennedy2, Svetha Venkatesh1. 1. Centre for Pattern Recognition and Data Analytics, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20000, Geelong, Vic. 3220, Australia. Email: ; ; ; 2. School of Medicine, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20000, Geelong, Vic. 3220, Australia. Email:
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Readmission rates are high following acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but risk stratification has proved difficult because known risk factors are only weakly predictive. In the present study, we applied hospital data to identify the risk of unplanned admission following AMI hospitalisations. METHODS: The study included 1660 consecutive AMI admissions. Predictive models were derived from 1107 randomly selected records and tested on the remaining 553 records. The electronic medical record (EMR) model was compared with a seven-factor predictive score known as the HOSPITAL score and a model derived from Elixhauser comorbidities. All models were evaluated for the ability to identify patients at high risk of 30-day ischaemic heart disease readmission and those at risk of all-cause readmission within 12 months following the initial AMI hospitalisation. RESULTS: The EMR model has higher discrimination than other models in predicting ischaemic heart disease readmissions (area under the curve (AUC) 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-0.85 for 30-day readmission). The positive predictive value was significantly higher with the EMR model, which identifies cohorts that were up to threefold more likely to be readmitted. Factors associated with readmission included emergency department attendances, cardiac diagnoses and procedures, renal impairment and electrolyte disturbances. The EMR model also performed better than other models (AUC 0.72; 95% CI 0.66-0.78), and with greater positive predictive value, in identifying 12-month risk of all-cause readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Routine hospital data can help identify patients at high risk of readmission following AMI. This could lead to decreased readmission rates by identifying patients suitable for targeted clinical interventions.
OBJECTIVE: Readmission rates are high following acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but risk stratification has proved difficult because known risk factors are only weakly predictive. In the present study, we applied hospital data to identify the risk of unplanned admission following AMI hospitalisations. METHODS: The study included 1660 consecutive AMI admissions. Predictive models were derived from 1107 randomly selected records and tested on the remaining 553 records. The electronic medical record (EMR) model was compared with a seven-factor predictive score known as the HOSPITAL score and a model derived from Elixhauser comorbidities. All models were evaluated for the ability to identify patients at high risk of 30-day ischaemic heart disease readmission and those at risk of all-cause readmission within 12 months following the initial AMI hospitalisation. RESULTS: The EMR model has higher discrimination than other models in predicting ischaemic heart disease readmissions (area under the curve (AUC) 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-0.85 for 30-day readmission). The positive predictive value was significantly higher with the EMR model, which identifies cohorts that were up to threefold more likely to be readmitted. Factors associated with readmission included emergency department attendances, cardiac diagnoses and procedures, renal impairment and electrolyte disturbances. The EMR model also performed better than other models (AUC 0.72; 95% CI 0.66-0.78), and with greater positive predictive value, in identifying 12-month risk of all-cause readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Routine hospital data can help identify patients at high risk of readmission following AMI. This could lead to decreased readmission rates by identifying patients suitable for targeted clinical interventions.
Authors: Christopher Pearce; Adam McLeod; Natalie Rinehart; Jon Patrick; Anna Fragkoudi; Jason Ferrigi; Elizabeth Deveny; Robin Whyte; Marianne Shearer Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Benjamin A Goldstein; Michael J Pencina; Maria E Montez-Rath; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2016-06-29 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Benjamin A Goldstein; Ann Marie Navar; Michael J Pencina; John P A Ioannidis Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Lauren N Smith; Anil N Makam; Douglas Darden; Helen Mayo; Sandeep R Das; Ethan A Halm; Oanh Kieu Nguyen Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2018-01
Authors: Michael E Matheny; Iben Ricket; Christine A Goodrich; Rashmee U Shah; Meagan E Stabler; Amy M Perkins; Chad Dorn; Jason Denton; Bruce E Bray; Ram Gouripeddi; John Higgins; Wendy W Chapman; Todd A MacKenzie; Jeremiah R Brown Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-01-04
Authors: Praveen Indraratna; Uzzal Biswas; Hueiming Liu; Stephen J Redmond; Jennifer Yu; Nigel H Lovell; Sze-Yuan Ooi Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-02-08
Authors: Chengyin Ye; Tianyun Fu; Shiying Hao; Doff McElhinney; Xuefeng Ling; Yan Zhang; Oliver Wang; Bo Jin; Minjie Xia; Modi Liu; Xin Zhou; Qian Wu; Yanting Guo; Chunqing Zhu; Yu-Ming Li; Devore S Culver; Shaun T Alfreds; Frank Stearns; Karl G Sylvester; Eric Widen Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Lila M Martin; James L Januzzi; Ryan W Thompson; Timothy G Ferris; Jagmeet P Singh; Vijeta Bhambhani; Jason H Wasfy Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 5.501