INTRODUCTION: The optimal methodology for assessing comorbidity to predict various surgical outcomes such as mortality, readmissions, complications, and failure to rescue (FTR) using claims data has not been established. OBJECTIVE: Compare diagnosis-based and prescription-based comorbidity scores for predicting surgical outcomes. METHODS: We used 100% Texas Medicare data (2006-2011) and included patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, pulmonary lobectomy, endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm, open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm, colectomy, and hip replacement (N=39,616). The ability of diagnosis-based [Charlson comorbidity score, Elixhauser comorbidity score, Combined Comorbidity Score, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-Hierarchical Condition Categories (CMS-HCC)] versus prescription-based Chronic disease score in predicting 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, 30-day readmission, complications, and FTR were compared using c-statistics (c) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). RESULTS: The overall 30-day mortality was 5.8%, 1-year mortality was 17.7%, 30-day readmission was 14.1%, complication rate was 39.7%, and FTR was 14.5%. CMS-HCC performed the best in predicting surgical outcomes (30-d mortality, c=0.797, IDI=4.59%; 1-y mortality, c=0.798, IDI=9.60%; 30-d readmission, c=0.630, IDI=1.27%; complications, c=0.766, IDI=9.37%; FTR, c=0.811, IDI=5.24%) followed by Elixhauser comorbidity index/disease categories (30-d mortality, c=0.750, IDI=2.37%; 1-y mortality, c=0.755, IDI=5.82%; 30-d readmission, c=0.629, IDI=1.43%; complications, c=0.730, IDI=3.99%; FTR, c=0.749, IDI=2.17%). Addition of prescription-based scores to diagnosis-based scores did not improve performance. CONCLUSIONS: The CMS-HCC had superior performance in predicting surgical outcomes. Prescription-based scores, alone or in addition to diagnosis-based scores, were not better than any diagnosis-based scoring system.
INTRODUCTION: The optimal methodology for assessing comorbidity to predict various surgical outcomes such as mortality, readmissions, complications, and failure to rescue (FTR) using claims data has not been established. OBJECTIVE: Compare diagnosis-based and prescription-based comorbidity scores for predicting surgical outcomes. METHODS: We used 100% Texas Medicare data (2006-2011) and included patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, pulmonary lobectomy, endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm, open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm, colectomy, and hip replacement (N=39,616). The ability of diagnosis-based [Charlson comorbidity score, Elixhauser comorbidity score, Combined Comorbidity Score, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-Hierarchical Condition Categories (CMS-HCC)] versus prescription-based Chronic disease score in predicting 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, 30-day readmission, complications, and FTR were compared using c-statistics (c) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). RESULTS: The overall 30-day mortality was 5.8%, 1-year mortality was 17.7%, 30-day readmission was 14.1%, complication rate was 39.7%, and FTR was 14.5%. CMS-HCC performed the best in predicting surgical outcomes (30-d mortality, c=0.797, IDI=4.59%; 1-y mortality, c=0.798, IDI=9.60%; 30-d readmission, c=0.630, IDI=1.27%; complications, c=0.766, IDI=9.37%; FTR, c=0.811, IDI=5.24%) followed by Elixhauser comorbidity index/disease categories (30-d mortality, c=0.750, IDI=2.37%; 1-y mortality, c=0.755, IDI=5.82%; 30-d readmission, c=0.629, IDI=1.43%; complications, c=0.730, IDI=3.99%; FTR, c=0.749, IDI=2.17%). Addition of prescription-based scores to diagnosis-based scores did not improve performance. CONCLUSIONS: The CMS-HCC had superior performance in predicting surgical outcomes. Prescription-based scores, alone or in addition to diagnosis-based scores, were not better than any diagnosis-based scoring system.
Authors: Chan Zeng; Jennifer L Ellis; John F Steiner; Jo Ann Shoup; Deanna B McQuillan; Elizabeth A Bayliss Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: C Y Wang; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Barry G Saver; Sharon A Dobie; Pamela K Green; Yong Cai; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Vanessa P Ho; Nicholas K Schiltz; Andrew P Reimer; Elizabeth A Madigan; Siran M Koroukian Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-12-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Amit Kumar; Amol M Karmarkar; James E Graham; Linda Resnik; Alai Tan; Anne Deutsch; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Hemalkumar B Mehta; Shan Yong; Sneha D Sura; Byron D Hughes; Yong-Fang Kuo; Stephen B Williams; Douglas S Tyler; Taylor S Riall; James S Goodwin Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Ruiyang Jiang; Steven Wolf; Muhammad H Alkazemi; Gina-Maria Pomann; J Todd Purves; John S Wiener; Jonathan C Routh Journal: J Pediatr Urol Date: 2018-02-26 Impact factor: 1.830
Authors: Amit Kumar; Amol Karmarkar; Brian Downer; Amit Vashist; Deepak Adhikari; Soham Al Snih; Kenneth Ottenbacher Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2017-10-09 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Hemalkumar B Mehta; Abhishek D Parmar; Deepak Adhikari; Nina P Tamirisa; Francesca Dimou; Daniel Jupiter; Taylor S Riall Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Nicholas M Mohr; Karisa K Harland; Dan M Shane; Azeemuddin Ahmed; Brian M Fuller; Marcia M Ward; James C Torner Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Nicholas M Mohr; Karisa K Harland; Dan M Shane; Azeemuddin Ahmed; Brian M Fuller; James C Torner Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Parth K Modi; Devraj A Sukul; Mary Oerline; Michael P Thompson; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Chad Ellimoottil; Vahakn B Shahinian; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2019-12-13