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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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