JOURNAL ARTICLE

Completeness and diagnostic validity of recording acute myocardial infarction events in primary care, hospital care, disease registry, and national mortality records: cohort study

Emily Herrett, Anoop Dinesh Shah, Rachael Boggon, Spiros Denaxas, Liam Smeeth, Tjeerd van Staa, Adam Timmis, Harry Hemingway
BMJ: British Medical Journal 2013 May 20, 346: f2350
23692896

OBJECTIVE: To determine the completeness and diagnostic validity of myocardial infarction recording across four national health record sources in primary care, hospital care, a disease registry, and mortality register.

DESIGN: Cohort study.

PARTICIPANTS: 21 482 patients with acute myocardial infarction in England between January 2003 and March 2009, identified in four prospectively collected, linked electronic health record sources: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (primary care data), Hospital Episode Statistics (hospital admissions), the disease registry MINAP (Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project), and the Office for National Statistics mortality register (cause specific mortality data).

SETTING: One country (England) with one health system (the National Health Service).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recording of acute myocardial infarction, incidence, all cause mortality within one year of acute myocardial infarction, and diagnostic validity of acute myocardial infarction compared with electrocardiographic and troponin findings in the disease registry (gold standard).

RESULTS: Risk factors and non-cardiovascular coexisting conditions were similar across patients identified in primary care, hospital admission, and registry sources. Immediate all cause mortality was highest among patients with acute myocardial infarction recorded in primary care, which (unlike hospital admission and disease registry sources) included patients who did not reach hospital, but at one year mortality rates in cohorts from each source were similar. 5561 (31.0%) patients with non-fatal acute myocardial infarction were recorded in all three sources and 11 482 (63.9%) in at least two sources. The crude incidence of acute myocardial infarction was underestimated by 25-50% using one source compared with using all three sources. Compared with acute myocardial infarction defined in the disease registry, the positive predictive value of acute myocardial infarction recorded in primary care was 92.2% (95% confidence interval 91.6% to 92.8%) and in hospital admissions was 91.5% (90.8% to 92.1%).

CONCLUSION: Each data source missed a substantial proportion (25-50%) of myocardial infarction events. Failure to use linked electronic health records from primary care, hospital care, disease registry, and death certificates may lead to biased estimates of the incidence and outcome of myocardial infarction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01569139 clinicaltrials.gov.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
23692896
×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"