Jea Young Min1,2, Carlos G Grijalva1,2, James A Morrow2, Christine C Whitmore2, Robert E Hawley2, Sonal Singh3, Richard S Swain4, Marie R Griffin1,2,5. 1. Veterans Health Administration Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Geriatric Research and Education Clinical Center (GRECC), HSR&D Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 2. Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 3. Department of Family Medicine & Community Health, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Two previously validated algorithms to identify sudden cardiac death using administrative data showed high positive predictive value. We evaluated the agreement between the algorithms using data from a common source population. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the percent agreement between deaths identified by two sudden cardiac death algorithms using Tennessee Medicaid and death certificate data from 2007 through 2014. The source population included all deceased patients aged 18 to 64 years with Medicaid enrollment in the 6 months prior to death. To identify sudden cardiac deaths, algorithm 1 used only hospital/emergency department (ED) claims from encounters at the time of death, and algorithm 2 required death certificates and used claims data for specific exclusion criteria. RESULTS: We identified 34 107 deaths in the source population over the study period. The two algorithms identified 4372 potential sudden cardiac deaths: Algorithm 1 identified 3117 (71.3%) and algorithm 2 identified 1715 (39.2%), with 460 (10.5%) deaths identified by both algorithms. Of the deaths identified by algorithm 1, 1943 (62.3%) had an underlying cause of death not specified in algorithm 2. Of the deaths identified by algorithm 2, 1053 (61.4%) had no record of a hospital or ED encounter at the time of death, and 202 (11.8%) had a discharge diagnosis code not specified in algorithm 1. CONCLUSIONS: We found low agreement between the two algorithms for identification of sudden cardiac deaths because of differences in sudden cardiac death definitions and data sources.
PURPOSE: Two previously validated algorithms to identify sudden cardiac death using administrative data showed high positive predictive value. We evaluated the agreement between the algorithms using data from a common source population. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the percent agreement between deaths identified by two sudden cardiac death algorithms using Tennessee Medicaid and death certificate data from 2007 through 2014. The source population included all deceased patients aged 18 to 64 years with Medicaid enrollment in the 6 months prior to death. To identify sudden cardiac deaths, algorithm 1 used only hospital/emergency department (ED) claims from encounters at the time of death, and algorithm 2 required death certificates and used claims data for specific exclusion criteria. RESULTS: We identified 34 107 deaths in the source population over the study period. The two algorithms identified 4372 potential sudden cardiac deaths: Algorithm 1 identified 3117 (71.3%) and algorithm 2 identified 1715 (39.2%), with 460 (10.5%) deaths identified by both algorithms. Of the deaths identified by algorithm 1, 1943 (62.3%) had an underlying cause of deathnot specified in algorithm 2. Of the deaths identified by algorithm 2, 1053 (61.4%) had no record of a hospital or ED encounter at the time of death, and 202 (11.8%) had a discharge diagnosis code not specified in algorithm 1. CONCLUSIONS: We found low agreement between the two algorithms for identification of sudden cardiac deaths because of differences in sudden cardiac death definitions and data sources.
Authors: Sana M Al-Khatib; William G Stevenson; Michael J Ackerman; William J Bryant; David J Callans; Anne B Curtis; Barbara J Deal; Timm Dickfeld; Michael E Field; Gregg C Fonarow; Anne M Gillis; Christopher B Granger; Stephen C Hammill; Mark A Hlatky; José A Joglar; G Neal Kay; Daniel D Matlock; Robert J Myerburg; Richard L Page Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Sonal Singh; Hassan Fouayzi; Kathryn Anzuoni; Leah Goldman; Jea Young Min; Marie Griffin; Carlos G Grijalva; James A Morrow; Christine C Whitmore; Charles E Leonard; Mano Selvan; Vinit Nair; Yunping Zhou; Sengwee Toh; Andrew Petrone; James Williams; Elnara Fazio-Eynullayeva; Richard Swain; D Tyler Coyle; Susan Andrade Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Charles E Leonard; Warren B Bilker; Craig Newcomb; Stephen E Kimmel; Sean Hennessy Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2011-07-28 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Caroline S Fox; Jane C Evans; Martin G Larson; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Christopher J O'Donnell; Paul D Sorlie; Teri A Manolio; William B Kannel; Daniel Levy Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Wayne A Ray; Katherine T Murray; Sarah Meredith; Sukumar Suguna Narasimhulu; Kathi Hall; C Michael Stein Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-09-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sean Hennessy; Charles E Leonard; Cristin P Freeman; Rajat Deo; Craig Newcomb; Stephen E Kimmel; Brian L Strom; Warren B Bilker Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 2.890