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 , Søren R. Petersen , Kasper Bonnesen , Christian J. Terkelsen , 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.