Dataset Information

Case definitions for acute myocardial infarction in administrative databases and their impact on in-hospital mortality rates.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To identify validated ICD-9-CM/ICD-10 coded case definitions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Data sources

Ovid Medline (1950-2010) was searched to identify studies that validated acute myocardial infarction (AMI) case definitions. Hospital discharge abstract data and chart data were linked to validate identified AMI definitions.

Study design

Systematic literature review, chart review, and administrative data analysis.

Data collection/extraction methods

Data on sensitivity/specificity/positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were extracted from previous studies to identify validated case definitions for AMI. These case definitions were validated in administrative data through chart review and applied to hospital discharge data to assess in-hospital mortality.

Principal findings

Of the eight ICD-9-CM definitions validated in the literature, use of ICD-9-CM code 410 to define AMI had the highest sensitivity (94 percent) and specificity (99 percent). In our data, ICD-9-CM/ICD-10 codes 410/I21-I22 in all available coding fields had high sensitivity (83.3 percent/82.8 percent) and PPV (82.8 percent/82.2 percent). The in-hospital mortality among AMI patients identified using this case definition was 7.6 percent in ICD-9-CM data and 6.6 percent in ICD-10 data.

Conclusions

We recommend that ICD-9-CM 410 or ICD-10 I21-I22 in the primary diagnosis coding field should be used to define AMI. The use of a consistent validated case definition would improve comparability across studies.

SUBMITTER: Metcalfe A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3589967 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe describe the clinical characteristics, treatments and in-hospital case-fatality rates in an unselected population of patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction.MethodsFrom January 2000 to June 2007, we tracked consecutive patients who were admitted to 7 tertiary referral and 21 county hospitals in Romania for medical treatment of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction. These patients were enrolled in the Romanian Registry for ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. For this prospective study, we collected data on demographic characteristics, cardiovascular risk factors, various aspects of treatment for myocardial infarction, and in-hospital death.ResultsThe 9186 patients in the study group had a mean age of 63.8 years. The median time from onset of symptoms to thrombolysis was 230 (interquartile range 120-510) minutes. Of the 9186 patients, 4986 (54.3%) had hypertension, 1974 (21.5%) had diabetes mellitus, 3545 (38.6%) had lipid disorders and 4653 (50.7%) were smokers. The in-hospital mortality rate was 12.7% (1170 deaths). The study group consisted of 2893 women and 6293 men. The women were older than the men and had higher rates of hypertension and diabetes mellitus but were less likely to be smokers. A smaller proportion of women than men presented within 2 hours after onset of symptoms (23.1% v. 34.4%, p < 0.001). Smaller proportions of women received thrombolytics (40.8% v. 53.5%, p < 0.001), anticoagulants (93.4% v. 95.2%; p = 0.001), antiplatelet agents (88.3% v. 91.2%, p < 0.001) and primary percutaneous coronary interventions (1.5% v. 2.2%, p = 0.030). The risk of in-hospital death was greater for women, even after adjustment for confounders (odds ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.13-1.56; p < 0.001).InterpretationThe rates of reperfusion therapy for patients with acute myocardial infarction were low, and in-hospital case-fatality rates were high in this study. Excess in-hospital mortality was more pronounced among women.

Project description:Despite recent improvements in survival after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), U.S. hospitals vary 2-fold in their 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs). Nevertheless, information is limited on hospital-level factors that may be associated with RSMRs.To identify hospital strategies that were associated with lower RSMRs.Cross-sectional survey of 537 hospitals (91% response rate) and weighted multivariate regression by using data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to determine the associations between hospital strategies and hospital RSMRs.Acute care hospitals with an annualized AMI volume of at least 25 patients.Patients hospitalized with AMI between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2009.Hospital performance improvement strategies, characteristics, and 30-day RSMRs.In multivariate analysis, several hospital strategies were significantly associated with lower RSMRs and in aggregate were associated with clinically important differences in RSMRs. These strategies included holding monthly meetings to review AMI cases between hospital clinicians and staff who transported patients to the hospital (RSMR lower by 0.70 percentage points), having cardiologists always on site (lower by 0.54 percentage points), fostering an organizational environment in which clinicians are encouraged to solve problems creatively (lower by 0.84 percentage points), not cross-training nurses from intensive care units for the cardiac catheterization laboratory (lower by 0.44 percentage points), and having physician and nurse champions rather than nurse champions alone (lower by 0.88 percentage points). Fewer than 10% of hospitals reported using at least 4 of these 5 strategies.The cross-sectional design demonstrates statistical associations but cannot establish causal relationships.Several strategies, which are currently implemented by relatively few hospitals, are associated with significantly lower 30-day RSMRs for patients with AMI.The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the United Health Foundation, and the Commonwealth Fund.

Project description:BackgroundThough administrative databases are increasingly being used for research related to myocardial infarction (MI), the validity of MI diagnoses in these databases has never been synthesized on a large scale.ObjectiveTo conduct the first systematic review of studies reporting on the validity of diagnostic codes for identifying MI in administrative data.MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched (inception to November 2010) for studies: (a) Using administrative data to identify MI; or (b) Evaluating the validity of MI codes in administrative data; and (c) Reporting validation statistics (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, or Kappa scores) for MI, or data sufficient for their calculation. Additonal articles were located by handsearch (up to February 2011) of original papers. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers; article quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool.ResultsThirty studies published from 1984-2010 were included; most assessed codes from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9th revision. Sensitivity and specificity of hospitalization data for identifying MI in most [≥50%] studies was ≥86%, and PPV in most studies was ≥93%. The PPV was higher in the more-recent studies, and lower when criteria that do not incorporate cardiac troponin levels (such as the MONICA) were employed as the gold standard. MI as a cause-of-death on death certificates also demonstrated lower accuracy, with maximum PPV of 60% (for definite MI).ConclusionsHospitalization data has higher validity and hence can be used to identify MI, but the accuracy of MI as a cause-of-death on death certificates is suboptimal, and more studies are needed on the validity of ICD-10 codes. When using administrative data for research purposes, authors should recognize these factors and avoid using vital statistics data if hospitalization data is not available to confirm deaths from MI.

Project description:BackgroundPublicly reported hospital risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are calculated for Medicare beneficiaries. Outcomes for older patients with AMI may not reflect general outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine the relationship between hospital 30-day RSMRs for older patients (aged ≥65 years) and those for younger patients (aged 18 to 64 years) and all patients (aged ≥18 years) with AMI.DesignRetrospective cohort study.Setting986 hospitals in the ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) Registry-Get With the Guidelines.ParticipantsAdults hospitalized for AMI from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2014.MeasurementsHospital 30-day RSMRs were calculated for older, younger, and all patients using an electronic health record measure of AMI mortality endorsed by the National Quality Forum. Hospitals were ranked by their 30-day RSMRs for these 3 age groups, and agreement in rankings was plotted. The correlation in hospital AMI achievement scores for each age group was also calculated using the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) Program method computed with the electronic health record measure.Results267 763 and 276 031 AMI hospitalizations among older and younger patients, respectively, were identified. Median hospital 30-day RSMRs were 9.4%, 3.0%, and 6.2% for older, younger, and all patients, respectively. Most top- and bottom-performing hospitals for older patients were neither top nor bottom performers for younger patients. In contrast, most top and bottom performers for older patients were also top and bottom performers for all patients. Similarly, HVBP achievement scores for older patients correlated weakly with those for younger patients (R = 0.30) and strongly with those for all patients (R = 0.92).LimitationMinority of U.S. hospitals.ConclusionHospital mortality rankings for older patients with AMI inconsistently reflect rankings for younger patients. Incorporation of younger patients into assessment of hospital outcomes would permit further examination of the presence and effect of age-related quality differences.Primary funding sourceAmerican College of Cardiology.

Project description:BackgroundIn-hospital case-fatality rates in patients, admitted for acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CFRs), are internationally used as a quality indicator. Attempting to encourage the hospitals to assume responsibility, the Belgian Ministry of Health decided to stimulate initiatives of quality improvement by means of a limited set of indicators, among which AMI-CFR, to be routinely analyzed. In this study we aimed, by determining the existence of inter-hospital differences in AMI-CFR, (1) to evaluate to which extent Belgian discharge records allow the assessment of quality of care in the field of AMI, and (2) to identify starting points for quality improvement.MethodsHospital discharge records from all the Belgian short-term general hospitals in the period 2002-2005. The study population (N = 46,287) included patients aged 18 years and older, hospitalized for AMI. No unique patient identifier being present, we tried to track transferred patients. We assessed data quality through a comparison of MCD with data from two registers for acute coronary events and through transfer and sensitivity analyses. We compared AMI-CFRs across hospitals, using multivariable logistic regression models. In the main model hospitals, Charlson's co-morbidity index, age, gender and shock constituted the covariates. We carried out two types of analyses: a first one wherein transferred-out cases were excluded, to avoid double counting of patients when computing rates, and a second one with exclusion of all transferred cases, to allow the study of patients admitted into, treated in and discharged from the same hospital.ResultsWe identified problems regarding both the CFR's numerator and denominator.Sensitivity analyses revealed differential coding and/or case management practices. In the model with exclusion of transfer-out cases, the main determinants of AMI-CFR were cardiogenic shock (OR(adj) 23.0; 95% CI [20.9;25.2]), and five-year age groups OR(adj) 1.23; 95% CI [1.11;1.36]). Sizable inter-hospital and inter-type of hospital differences {(OR(comunity vs tertiary hospitals)1.36; 95% CI [1.34;1.39]) and (OR(intermediary vs tertiary hospitals)1.36; 95% CI [1.34;1.39])}, and nonconformities to guidelines for treatment were observed.ConclusionsDespite established data quality shortcomings, the magnitude of the observed differences and the nonconformities constitute leads to quality improvement. However, to measure progress, ways to improve and routinely monitor data quality should be developed.

Project description:ObjectivePressure ulcer development is a quality of care indicator, as pressure ulcers are potentially preventable. Yet pressure ulcer is a leading cause of morbidity, discomfort and additional healthcare costs for inpatients. Methods are lacking for accurate surveillance of pressure ulcer in hospitals to track occurrences and evaluate care improvement strategies. The main study aim was to validate hospital discharge abstract database (DAD) in recording pressure ulcers against nursing consult reports, and to calculate prevalence of pressure ulcers in Alberta, Canada in DAD. We hypothesised that a more inclusive case definition for pressure ulcers would enhance validity of cases identified in administrative data for research and quality improvement purposes.SettingA cohort of patients with pressure ulcers were identified from enterostomal (ET) nursing consult documents at a large university hospital in 2011.ParticipantsThere were 1217 patients with pressure ulcers in ET nursing documentation that were linked to a corresponding record in DAD to validate DAD for correct and accurate identification of pressure ulcer occurrence, using two case definitions for pressure ulcer.ResultsUsing pressure ulcer definition 1 (7 codes), prevalence was 1.4%, and using definition 2 (29 codes), prevalence was 4.2% after adjusting for misclassifications. The results were lower than expected. Definition 1 sensitivity was 27.7% and specificity was 98.8%, while definition 2 sensitivity was 32.8% and specificity was 95.9%. Pressure ulcer in both DAD and ET consultation increased with age, number of comorbidities and length of stay.ConclusionDAD underestimate pressure ulcer prevalence. Since various codes are used to record pressure ulcers in DAD, the case definition with more codes captures more pressure ulcer cases, and may be useful for monitoring facility trends. However, low sensitivity suggests that this data source may not be accurate for determining overall prevalence, and should be cautiously compared with other prevalence studies.

Project description:Mortality rates for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) vary substantially across hospitals, even when adjusted for patient severity; however, little is known about hospital factors that may influence this variation.To identify factors that may be related to better performance in AMI care, as measured by risk-standardized mortality rates.Qualitative study that used site visits and in-depth interviews.Eleven U.S. hospitals that ranked in either the top or the bottom 5% in risk-standardized mortality rates for 2 recent years of data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2005 to 2006 and 2006 to 2007), with diversity among hospitals in key characteristics.158 members of hospital staff, all of whom were involved with AMI care at the 11 hospitals.Site visits and in-depth interviews conducted with hospital staff during 2009. A multidisciplinary team performed analyses by using the constant comparative method.Hospitals in the high-performing and low-performing groups differed substantially in the domains of organizational values and goals, senior management involvement, broad staff presence and expertise in AMI care, communication and coordination among groups, and problem solving and learning. Participants described diverse protocols or processes for AMI care (such as rapid response teams, clinical guidelines, use of hospitalists, and medication reconciliation); however, these did not systematically differentiate high-performing from low-performing hospitals.The qualitative design informed the generation of hypotheses, and statistical associations could not be assessed.High-performing hospitals were characterized by an organizational culture that supported efforts to improve AMI care across the hospital. Evidence-based protocols and processes, although important, may not be sufficient for achieving high hospital performance in care for patients with AMI.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, United Health Foundation, and the Commonwealth Fund.