Why the study?
EF class predicts treatment response in HF, but administrative claims databases lack EF data, limiting their utility in clinical and health services research.
Can a Medicare claims-based model accurately predict left ventricular ejection fraction class in patients with heart failure?
Can a Medicare claims-based model accurately predict left ventricular ejection fraction class in patients with heart failure?
A Medicare claims-based model using 35 variables can accurately classify heart failure patients into reduced or preserved ejection fraction categories, facilitating health services research when direct EF measurements are unavailable.
May enable EF-stratified HF research in claims databases; leaves open external validation before broader use.
BACKGROUND: Ejection fraction (EF) class is an important predictor of treatment response in heart failure (HF); however, administrative claims databases lack information on EF, limiting their usefulness in clinical and health services research of HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We linked Medicare claims data to electronic medical records containing EF measurements for a cohort of 11 073 patients with HF from 2 academic medical centers. A a claims-based model predicting EF class was constructed using data from center 1 ("training sample") and validated using data from center 2 ("testing sample). Linear and logistic regression models with least absolute square shrinkage operator and Bayesian information criteria were developed to select the relevant predictor variables out of the total 57 candidate variables in the training sample. Higher accuracy was noted in the testing sample with models classifying patients into 2 EF classes (reduced EF <0.45) versus preserved EF (≥0.45) when compared with classifying patients into 3 EF classes (reduced, <0.40, moderately reduced, 0.40-0.49, or preserved, ≥0.50). In the testing sample, the most efficient model had 35 predictors and resulted in 83% of patients being correctly classified (95% CI, 82%-84%). The model had positive predictive value of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.68-0.78) and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.83-0.86) and sensitivity of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.25-0.32) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.97-0.98) for reduced and preserved EF, respectively. In addition to HF-specific diagnosis codes, other factors including age, sex, medication use, and comorbidities, such as myocardial infarction and valve disorders, were important discriminators between EF classes. CONCLUSIONS: The claims-based model developed in this study may be used to identify patient subgroups with specific EF class in studies evaluating the health outcomes, utilization patterns, and cost, of HF patients in routine care when EF measurements are not available.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Desai et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: