Abstract

Although claims data provide a large and efficient source of clinical events, validation is needed prior to use in heart failure (HF) diagnostic development. Data from the Multisensor Chronic Evaluations in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients (MultiSENSE) study, used to create the HeartLogic HF diagnostic, were linked with fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare claims. Events were matched by patient ID and date, and agreement was calculated between claims primary HF diagnosis codes and study event adjudication. HF events (HFEs) were defined as inpatient visits, or outpatient visits with intravenous decongestive therapy. Diagnostic performance was measured as HFE-detection sensitivity and false-positive rate (FPR). Linkage of 791 MultiSENSE subjects returned 320 FFS patients with an average follow-up duration of 0.94 years. Although study and claims deaths matched exactly (n = 14), matching was imperfect between study hospitalizations and acute inpatient claims events. Of 239 total events, 165 study hospitalizations (69%) matched inpatient claims events, 28 hospitalizations matched outpatient claims events (12%), 14 hospitalizations were study-unique (6%), and 32 inpatient events were claims-unique (13%). Inpatient HF classification had substantial agreement with study adjudication (κ = 0.823). Diagnostic performance was not different between claims and study events (sensitivity = 75.6% vs 77.6% and FPR = 1.539 vs 1.528 alerts/patient-year). HeartLogic-detected events contributed to > 90% of the HFE costs used for evaluation. Acceptable event matching, good agreement of claims diagnostic codes with adjudication, and equivalent diagnostic performance support the validity of using claims for HF diagnostic development.

Highlights

  • Claims data provide a large and efficient source of clinical events, validation is needed prior to use in heart failure (HF) diagnostic development

  • Forty-nine MultiSENSErecorded HF events in the linked cohort were usable for HeartLogic performance evaluation

  • At the nominal index threshold, HeartLogic had a sensitivity of 77.6% and an false-positive rate (FPR) of 1.528/ patient-year

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Claims data provide a large and efficient source of clinical events, validation is needed prior to use in heart failure (HF) diagnostic development. Methods and Results: Data from the Multisensor Chronic Evaluations in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients (MultiSENSE) study, used to create the HeartLogic HF diagnostic, were linked with fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare claims. Events were matched by patient ID and date, and agreement was calculated between claims primary HF diagnosis codes and study event adjudication. Diagnostic performance was measured as HFE-detection sensitivity and false-positive rate (FPR). Diagnostic performance was not different between claims and study events (sensitivity = 75.6% vs 77.6% and FPR = 1.539 vs 1.528 alerts/patient-year). Conclusions: Acceptable event matching, good agreement of claims diagnostic codes with adjudication, and equivalent diagnostic performance support the validity of using claims for HF diagnostic development. Conclusions: Acceptable event matching, good agreement of claims diagnostic codes with adjudication, and equivalent diagnostic performance support the validity of using claims for HF diagnostic development. (J Cardiac Fail 2021;00:1À9) Key Words: Worsening heart failure, diagnostic monitoring, ICD/CRT-D, Medicare claims

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.