Key result
Automated EHR-based cardiac risk estimation showed high agreement with manual chart review (kappa = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93) and accurately identified candidates for preventive interventions.
Why the study?
Does automated EHR-based cardiac risk assessment accurately identify candidates for preventive interventions compared to manual chart review in adult primary care patients?
Observational (n=23,111)
Single-blind
No
Does automated EHR-based cardiac risk assessment accurately identify candidates for preventive interventions compared to manual chart review in adult primary care patients?
Effect estimate: kappa 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93)
Automated EHR-based cardiovascular risk stratification shows high agreement with manual chart review, enabling efficient identification of patients needing preventive interventions.
May support scalable risk stratification in primary care; leaves open prospective outcome validation of automated EHR tools.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac risk assessment may not be routinely performed. Electronic health records (EHRs) offer the potential to automate risk estimation. We compared EHR-based assessment with manual chart review to determine the accuracy of automated cardiac risk estimation and determination of candidates for antiplatelet or lipid-lowering interventions. METHODS: We performed an observational retrospective study of 23,111 adults aged 20 to 79 years, seen in a large urban primary care group practice. Automated assessments classified patients into 4 cardiac risk groups or as unclassifiable and determined candidates for antiplatelet or lipid-lowering interventions based on current guidelines. A blinded physician manually reviewed 100 patients from each risk group and the unclassifiable group. We determined the agreement between full review and automated assessments for cardiac risk estimation and identification of which patients were candidates for interventions. RESULTS: By automated methods, 9.2% of the population were candidates for lipid-lowering interventions, and 8.0% were candidates for antiplatelet medication. Agreement between automated risk classification and manual review was high (kappa = 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-0.93). Automated methods accurately identified candidates for antiplatelet therapy [sensitivity, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.73-0.89); specificity, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99); positive predictive value, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.78-0.94); and negative predictive value, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99)] and lipid lowering [sensitivity, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87-0.96); specificity, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99); positive predictive value, 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99); and negative predictive value, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-> or =0.99)]. CONCLUSIONS: EHR data can be used to automatically perform cardiovascular risk stratification and identify patients in need of risk-lowering interventions. This could improve detection of high-risk patients whom physicians would otherwise be unaware.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Persell et al. (2009) conducted an observational in Cardiovascular risk (n=23,111). Automated EHR-based cardiac risk estimation vs. Manual chart review was evaluated on Agreement between automated risk classification and manual review (kappa 0.91, 95% CI 0.88-0.93). Automated EHR-based cardiac risk estimation showed high agreement with manual chart review (kappa = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93) and accurately identified candidates for preventive interventions.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: