Does a comprehensive algorithm including secondary diagnoses and outpatient encounters improve the capture of heart failure events in a CKD population compared to principal diagnosis alone?
Using electronic health data algorithms that include secondary diagnoses and outpatient encounters significantly increases the detection of heart failure events in CKD patients compared to relying solely on principal hospitalization diagnoses.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Studies that use electronic health data typically identify heart failure (HF) events from hospitalizations with a principal diagnosis of HF. This approach may underestimate the total burden of HF among persons with CKD. We assessed the accuracy of algorithms for identifying validated HF events from hospitalizations and outpatient encounters, and we used this validation information to estimate the rate of HF events in a large CKD population. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: from 2008 to 2011. Potential HF events during follow-up were randomly sampled for validation with medical record review. Positive predictive values from the validation study were used to estimate the rate of validated HF events in the full cohort. RESULTS: A total of 1864 participants had at least one health care encounter that qualified as a potential HF event during 2.7 years of mean follow-up. Among 313 potential events that were randomly sampled for validation, positive predictive values were 92% for hospitalizations with a principal diagnosis of HF, 32% for hospitalizations with a secondary diagnosis of HF, and 70% for qualifying outpatient HF encounters. Through use of this validation information in the full cohort, the rate of validated HF events estimated from the most comprehensive algorithm that included principal and secondary diagnosis hospitalizations and outpatient encounters was 35.2 events/1000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 33.1 to 37.4), compared with 9.5 events/1000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 8.7 to 10.5) from the algorithm that included only principal diagnosis hospitalizations. Outpatient encounters accounted for 20% of the total number of validated HF events. CONCLUSIONS: In studies that rely on electronic health data, algorithms that include hospitalizations with a secondary diagnosis of HF and outpatient HF encounters more fully capture the burden of HF, although validation of HF events may be necessary with this approach.
Floyd et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: