Literature DB >> 25497246

Accuracy and validation of an automated electronic algorithm to identify patients with atrial fibrillation at risk for stroke.

Ann Marie Navar-Boggan1, Jennifer A Rymer2, Jonathan P Piccini2, Wassim Shatila2, Lauren Ring2, Judith A Stafford2, Sana M Al-Khatib2, Eric D Peterson2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is no universally accepted algorithm for identifying atrial fibrillation (AF) patients and stroke risk using electronic data for use in performance measures.
METHODS: Patients with AF seen in clinic were identified based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision(ICD-9) codes. CHADS(2) and CHA(2)DS(s)-Vasc scores were derived from a broad, 10-year algorithm using IICD-9 codes dating back 10 years and a restrictive, 1-year algorithm that required a diagnosis within the past year. Accuracy of claims-based AF diagnoses and of each stroke risk classification algorithm were evaluated using chart reviews for 300 patients. These algorithms were applied to assess system-wide anticoagulation rates.
RESULTS: Between 6/1/2011, and 5/31/2012, we identified 6,397 patients with AF. Chart reviews confirmed AF or atrial flutter in 95.7%. A 1-year algorithm using CHA(2)DS(2)-Vasc score ≥2 to identify patients at risk for stroke maximized positive predictive value (97.5% [negative predictive value 65.1%]). The PPV of the 10-year algorithm using CHADS(2) was 88.0%; 12% those identified as high-risk had CHADS(2) scores <2. Anticoagulation rates were identical using 1-year and 10-year algorithms for patients with CHADS(2) scores ≥2 (58.5% on anticoagulation) and CHA(2)DS(2)-Vasc scores ≥2 (56.0% on anticoagulation).
CONCLUSIONS: Automated methods can be used to identify patients with prevalent AF indicated for anticoagulation but may have misclassification up to 12%, which limits the utility of relying on administrative data alone for quality assessment. Misclassification is minimized by requiring comorbidity diagnoses within the prior year and using a CHA(2)DS(2)-Vasc based algorithm. Despite differences in accuracy between algorithms, system-wide anticoagulation rates assessed were similar regardless of algorithm used.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25497246     DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2014.09.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Heart J        ISSN: 0002-8703            Impact factor:   4.749


  14 in total

1.  Recurrent Falls Among Elderly Patients and the Impact of Anticoagulation Therapy.

Authors:  Alexander S Chiu; Raymond A Jean; Matthew Fleming; Kevin Y Pei
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  The Accuracy of an Electronic Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index Auto-Populated from the Electronic Health Record: Setting the stage for computerized clinical decision support.

Authors:  D R Vinson; J E Morley; J Huang; V Liu; M L Anderson; C E Drenten; R P Radecki; D K Nishijima; M E Reed
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2015-05-13       Impact factor: 2.342

3.  Nation-Wide Use of Periprocedural Bridging Anticoagulation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

Authors:  Geoffrey D Barnes; Kristian Seiler; Patrick Brady; Neil Kamdar
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2019-08-23       Impact factor: 2.778

4.  Automated versus Manual Data Extraction of the Padua Prediction Score for Venous Thromboembolism Risk in Hospitalized Older Adults.

Authors:  Juliessa M Pavon; Richard J Sloane; Carl F Pieper; Cathleen S Colón-Emeric; Harvey J Cohen; David Gallagher; Miriam C Morey; Midori McCarty; Thomas L Ortel; Susan N Hastings
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2018-09-26       Impact factor: 2.342

5.  Automated Pulmonary Embolism Risk Classification and Guideline Adherence for Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography Ordering.

Authors:  Christian A Koziatek; Emma Simon; Leora I Horwitz; Danil V Makarov; Silas W Smith; Simon Jones; Soterios Gyftopoulos; Jordan L Swartz
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2018-05-25       Impact factor: 3.451

6.  Warfarin Use and Mortality, Stroke, and Bleeding Outcomes in a Cohort of Elderly Patients with non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation.

Authors:  Bradshaw Pamela J; Hung Joseph; Knuiman Matthew; Briffa Thomas G; Nedkoff Lee; Katzenellebogen Judith M; Rankin Jamie M; Sanfilippo Frank M
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2019-06-30

7.  Automating Quality Metrics in the Era of Electronic Medical Records: Digital Signatures for Ventilator Bundle Compliance.

Authors:  Haitao Lan; Charat Thongprayoon; Adil Ahmed; Vitaly Herasevich; Priya Sampathkumar; Ognjen Gajic; John C O'Horo
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-06-08       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Iterative User Interface Design for Automated Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score Calculator in Sepsis Detection.

Authors:  Christopher Ansel Aakre; Jaben E Kitson; Man Li; Vitaly Herasevich
Journal:  JMIR Hum Factors       Date:  2017-05-18

9.  Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of identifying atrial fibrillation using administrative data: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ren Jie Robert Yao; Jason G Andrade; Marc W Deyell; Heather Jackson; Finlay A McAlister; Nathaniel M Hawkins
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2019-08-23       Impact factor: 4.790

10.  Validation of an algorithm based on administrative data to detect new onset of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery.

Authors:  Jonathan Bourgon Labelle; Paul Farand; Christian Vincelette; Myriam Dumont; Mathilde Le Blanc; Christian M Rochefort
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-04-05       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.