Singh Sheldon M, Webster Lauren, Calzavara Andrew, Wijeysundera Harindra C
*Schulich Heart Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto †Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) ‡Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto §Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Med Care. 2017 Jun;55(6):e44-e50. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000274.
Administrative database research can provide insight into the real-world effectiveness of invasive electrophysiology procedures. However, no validated algorithm to identify these procedures within administrative data currently exists.
To develop and validate algorithms to identify atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter (AFL), supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) catheter ablation procedures, and diagnostic electrophysiology studies (EPS) within administrative data.
Algorithms consisting of physician procedural billing codes and their associated most responsible hospital diagnosis codes were used to identify potential AF, AFL, SVT catheter ablation procedures and diagnostic EPS within large administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. The potential procedures were then limited to those performed between October 1, 2011 and March 31, 2013 at a single large regional cardiac center (Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center) in Ontario, Canada. These procedures were compared with a gold-standard cohort of patients known to have undergone invasive electrophysiology procedures during the same time period at the same institution. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of each algorithm was determined.
Algorithms specific to each of AF, AFL, and SVT ablation were associated with a moderate sensitivity (75%-86%), high specificity (95%-98%), positive (95%-98%), and negative (99%) predictive values. The best algorithm to identify diagnostic EPS was less optimal with a sensitivity of 61% and positive predictive value of 88%.
Algorithms using a combination of physician procedural billing codes and accompanying most responsible hospital diagnosis may identify catheter ablation procedures within administrative data with a high degree of accuracy. Diagnostic EPS may be identified with reduced accuracy.
行政数据库研究能够深入了解侵入性电生理程序的实际效果。然而,目前在行政数据中尚无经过验证的算法来识别这些程序。
开发并验证用于在行政数据中识别心房颤动(AF)、心房扑动(AFL)、室上性心动过速(SVT)导管消融程序以及诊断性电生理研究(EPS)的算法。
由医生程序计费代码及其相关的最主要医院诊断代码组成的算法,用于在加拿大安大略省的大型行政数据库中识别潜在的AF、AFL、SVT导管消融程序和诊断性EPS。然后将潜在程序限定为2011年10月1日至2013年3月31日期间在加拿大安大略省一个大型区域心脏中心(桑尼布鲁克健康科学中心)进行的程序。将这些程序与同一时期在同一机构已知接受侵入性电生理程序的金标准患者队列进行比较。确定每种算法的敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值。
针对AF、AFL和SVT消融的每种算法都具有中等敏感性(75%-86%)、高特异性(95%-98%)、阳性(95%-98%)和阴性(99%)预测值。识别诊断性EPS的最佳算法不太理想,敏感性为61%,阳性预测值为88%。
使用医生程序计费代码和相关的最主要医院诊断相结合的算法,可能在行政数据中高度准确地识别导管消融程序。识别诊断性EPS的准确性可能较低。