ABSTRACT
Introduction Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) is an important factor for treatment decisions for heart failure. The EF is unavailable in administrative claims. We sought to evaluate the predictive accuracy of claims diagnoses for classifying heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) versus heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with International Classification of Disease-Tenth Revision codes.
Methods We identified HF diagnoses for VA patients between 2017-2019 and extracted the EF from clinical notes and imaging reports using a VA natural language processing algorithm. We classified sets of codes as HFrEF-related, HFpEF-related, or non-specific based on the closest EF within 180 days. We selected a random heart failure diagnosis for each patient and tested the predictive accuracy of various algorithms for identifying HFrEF using the last 1 year of heart failure diagnoses. We performed sensitivity analyses on the EF thresholds, the cohort, and the diagnoses used.
Results Between 2017-2019, we identified 358,172 patients and 1,671,084 diagnoses with an EF recording within 180 days. After dividing diagnoses into HFrEF-related, HFpEF-related, or non-specific, we found using the proportion of specific diagnoses classified as HFrEF-related had an AUC of 0.76 for predicting EF≤40% and 0.80 for predicting EF<50%. However, 23.3% of patients could not be classified due to only having non-specific codes. Predictive accuracy increased among patients with ≥4 HF diagnoses over the preceding year.
Discussion In a VA cohort, administrative claims with ICD-10 codes had moderate accuracy for identifying reduced ejection fraction. This level of specificity is likely inadequate for performance measures. Administrative claims need to better align terminology with relevant clinical definitions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
ATS is supported by a grant from the NHLBI (1K23HL151672-01).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Stanford Institutional Review Board.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding: ATS is supported by a grant from the NHLBI (1K23HL151672-01).
Data Availability
The data is available from the Veteran's Affairs (VA) health system for VA researchers.
