Amy Metcalfe M.Sc., Annabelle Neudam M.Sc.,, Samantha Forde B.HSc.,, Mingfu Liu Ph.D.,, Saskia Drosler M.D.,, Hude Quan, Nathalie Jetté M.D., M.Sc.,
To identify validated ‐9‐/‐10 coded case definitions for acute myocardial infarction ().
Ovid Medline (1950–2010) was searched to identify studies that validated acute myocardial infarction () case definitions. Hospital discharge abstract data and chart data were linked to validate identified definitions.
Systematic literature review, chart review, and administrative data analysis.
Data on sensitivity/specificity/positive and negative predictive values ( and ) were extracted from previous studies to identify validated case definitions for . These case definitions were validated in administrative data through chart review and applied to hospital discharge data to assess in‐hospital mortality.
Of the eight ‐9‐ definitions validated in the literature, use of ‐9‐ code 410 to define had the highest sensitivity (94 percent) and specificity (99 percent). In our data, ‐9‐/‐10 codes 410/I21‐I22 in all available coding fields had high sensitivity (83.3 percent/82.8 percent) and (82.8 percent/82.2 percent). The in‐hospital mortality among patients identified using this case definition was 7.6 percent in ‐9‐ data and 6.6 percent in ‐10 data.
We recommend that ‐9‐ 410 or ‐10 I21‐I22 in the primary diagnosis coding field should be used to define . The use of a consistent validated case definition would improve comparability across studies
Data Collection/Extraction Methods