A comparison of two algorithms to identify sudden cardiac deaths in computerized databases. Issue 10 (7th August 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Min, Jea Young; Grijalva, Carlos G.; Morrow, James A.; Whitmore, Christine C.; Hawley, Robert E.; Singh, Sonal; Swain, Richard S.; Griffin, Marie R.
• Is Part Of: Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety. Volume 28:Issue 10(2019)
• Page Start: 1411
• Page End: 1416
• Publication Date: 2019-08-07
• Subjects: algorithms -- database -- pharmacoepidemiology -- sudden cardiac death; Pharmacoepidemiology -- Periodicals; Chemotherapy -- Periodicals; Epidemiology -- Periodicals; 615.705
• DOI: 10.1002/pds.4845
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1053-8569

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: Two previously validated algorithms to identify sudden cardiac death using administrative data showed high positive predictive value. We evaluated the agreement between the algorithms using data from a common source population. Methods: We conducted a cross‐sectional study to assess the percent agreement between deaths identified by two sudden cardiac death algorithms using Tennessee Medicaid and death certificate data from 2007 through 2014. The source population included all deceased patients aged 18 to 64 years with Medicaid enrollment in the 6 months prior to death. To identify sudden cardiac deaths, algorithm 1 used only hospital/emergency department (ED) claims from encounters at the time of death, and algorithm 2 required death certificates and used claims data for specific exclusion criteria. Results: We identified 34 107 deaths in the source population over the study period. The two algorithms identified 4372 potential sudden cardiac deaths: Algorithm 1 identified 3117 (71.3%) and algorithm 2 identified 1715 (39.2%), with 460 (10.5%) deaths identified by both algorithms. Of the deaths identified by algorithm 1, 1943 (62.3%) had an underlying cause of death not specified in algorithm 2. Of the deaths identified by algorithm 2, 1053 (61.4%) had no record of a hospital or ED encounter at the time of death, and 202 (11.8%) had a discharge diagnosis code not specified in algorithm 1. Conclusions: We found low agreement between the two algorithms for identification of sudden cardiac deaths because of differences in sudden cardiac death definitions and data sources.