Validity of out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest algorithms in the Danish National Patient Registry

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Katrine D. Brodersen , Søren R. Petersen , Kasper Bonnesen , Christian J. Terkelsen , Morten Schmidt
{"title":"Validity of out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest algorithms in the Danish National Patient Registry","authors":"Katrine D. Brodersen ,&nbsp;Søren R. Petersen ,&nbsp;Kasper Bonnesen ,&nbsp;Christian J. Terkelsen ,&nbsp;Morten Schmidt","doi":"10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100856","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aims</h3><div>Cardiac arrest is registered in the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) with the International Classification of Diseases 10<sup>th</sup> revision code I46. However, it does not distinguish between out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). We validated an algorithm to identify cardiac arrest subtypes (out-of-hospital vs. in-hospital).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>From Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, we sampled patients with a primary or secondary cardiac arrest discharge diagnosis during 2019–2023. The algorithm categorized these patients as OHCA if they (1) only had a single department course during their hospitalization or (2) had multiple department courses during their hospitalization but were discharged with a cardiac arrest diagnosis from the first department course. The algorithm categorized the remaining patients as IHCA. We randomly sampled 200 patients with algorithm-based OHCA (<em>n</em> = 100) and IHCA (<em>n</em> = 100). Using medical record review as the reference, we calculated positive predictive values (PPVs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Cardiac arrest was confirmed in 192 of 200 cases, yielding a PPV for cardiac arrest overall of 96% (95% CI: 92–98%). The PPV was 87% (95% CI: 79–92%) for OHCA and 61% (95% CI: 51–70%) for IHCA. The results were robust in age and sex strata.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The validity of a cardiac arrest diagnosis in the DNPR was overall high. The algorithm to distinguish cardiac arrest subtypes showed a high PPV for OHCA but a poor PPV for IHCA.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94192,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation plus","volume":"21 ","pages":"Article 100856"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11780140/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666520424003072","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims

Cardiac arrest is registered in the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) with the International Classification of Diseases 10th revision code I46. However, it does not distinguish between out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). We validated an algorithm to identify cardiac arrest subtypes (out-of-hospital vs. in-hospital).

Methods

From Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, we sampled patients with a primary or secondary cardiac arrest discharge diagnosis during 2019–2023. The algorithm categorized these patients as OHCA if they (1) only had a single department course during their hospitalization or (2) had multiple department courses during their hospitalization but were discharged with a cardiac arrest diagnosis from the first department course. The algorithm categorized the remaining patients as IHCA. We randomly sampled 200 patients with algorithm-based OHCA (n = 100) and IHCA (n = 100). Using medical record review as the reference, we calculated positive predictive values (PPVs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Cardiac arrest was confirmed in 192 of 200 cases, yielding a PPV for cardiac arrest overall of 96% (95% CI: 92–98%). The PPV was 87% (95% CI: 79–92%) for OHCA and 61% (95% CI: 51–70%) for IHCA. The results were robust in age and sex strata.

Conclusions

The validity of a cardiac arrest diagnosis in the DNPR was overall high. The algorithm to distinguish cardiac arrest subtypes showed a high PPV for OHCA but a poor PPV for IHCA.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Resuscitation plus
Resuscitation plus Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
52 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信