Dataset Information

Determining cardiovascular risk in patients with unattributed chest pain in UK primary care: an electronic health record study.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Most adults presenting in primary care with chest pain symptoms will not receive a diagnosis ('unattributed' chest pain) but are at increased risk of cardiovascular events. To assess within patients with unattributed chest pain, risk factors for cardiovascular events and whether those at greatest risk of cardiovascular disease can be ascertained by an existing general population risk prediction model or by development of a new model.

Methods and results

The study used UK primary care electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to admitted hospitalizations. Study population was patients aged 18 plus with recorded unattributed chest pain 2002-2018. Cardiovascular risk prediction models were developed with external validation and comparison of performance to QRISK3, a general population risk prediction model. There were 374 917 patients with unattributed chest pain in the development data set. The strongest risk factors for cardiovascular disease included diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and hypertension. Risk was increased in males, patients of Asian ethnicity, those in more deprived areas, obese patients, and smokers. The final developed model had good predictive performance (external validation c-statistic 0.81, calibration slope 1.02). A model using a subset of key risk factors for cardiovascular disease gave nearly identical performance. QRISK3 underestimated cardiovascular risk.

Conclusion

Patients presenting with unattributed chest pain are at increased risk of cardiovascular events. It is feasible to accurately estimate individual risk using routinely recorded information in the primary care record, focusing on a small number of risk factors. Patients at highest risk could be targeted for preventative measures.

SUBMITTER: Jordan KP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10442054 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Determining cardiovascular risk in patients with unattributed chest pain in UK primary care: an electronic health record study.

Jordan Kelvin P KP Rathod-Mistry Trishna T van der Windt Danielle A DA Bailey James J Chen Ying Y Clarson Lorna L Denaxas Spiros S Hayward Richard A RA Hemingway Harry H Kyriacou Theocharis T Mamas Mamas A MA

European journal of preventive cardiology 20230801 11

<h4>Aims</h4>Most adults presenting in primary care with chest pain symptoms will not receive a diagnosis ('unattributed' chest pain) but are at increased risk of cardiovascular events. To assess within patients with unattributed chest pain, risk factors for cardiovascular events and whether those at greatest risk of cardiovascular disease can be ascertained by an existing general population risk prediction model or by development of a new model.<h4>Methods and results</h4>The study used UK prim ...[more]

PMID: 36895179

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective To ascertain long term cardiovascular outcomes in patients whose chest pain remained undiagnosed six months after first presentation.Design Cohort study.Setting UK electronic health record database (CALIBER) linking primary care, secondary care, coronary registry, and death registry information.Participants 172 180 adults aged ≥18 from 223 general practices presenting with a first episode of recorded chest pain, classified from medical records as diagnosed (non-coronary condition or angina) or undiagnosed (cause unattributed) at first consultation between 2002 and 2009 and with no previous record of cardiovascular disease.Main outcome measures Fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular events over 5.5 years' follow-up. Adjustments were made for age, sex, deprivation, body mass index, smoking status, year of index presentation, and previous records of diabetes or hypertension or previous prescriptions for lipid lowering drugs.Results At the index presentation, 72.4% of patients (124 688) did not have a cause attributed for their chest pain; 118 687 (95.2%) of these did not receive any type of cardiovascular diagnosis over the next six months. Only a minority of patients in all three groups (non-coronary 2.0% (769 of 39 232); unattributed 11.7% (14 582 of 124 688); angina 31.5% (2606 of 8260)) had a recorded cardiac diagnostic investigation in the first six months after presentation. The long term incidence of cardiovascular events was higher in those whose chest pain remained unattributed after six months (5126 of 109 628; 4.7%) compared with patients with an initial diagnosis of non-coronary pain (1073 of 36 097; 3.0%) (adjusted hazard ratios for 0.5-1 year after presentation: 1.95, 95% confidence interval 1.66 to 2.31; for 1-3 years: 1.35, 1.23 to 1.48); for 3-5.5 years: 1.21, 1.08 to 1.37). Owing to the larger number of patients in the unattributed group, there were more excess myocardial infarctions in the long term in this group (214 more than expected based on the rate in the non-coronary group) than in the angina group (132 more than expected). Patients who had cardiac diagnostic investigations in the first six months had a higher long term risk of cardiovascular events, regardless of the initial chest pain label. Incidence of unattributed chest pain and angina decreased between 2002 (124 per 10 000 person years and 13 per 10 000 person years, respectively) and 2009 (107 per 10 000 person years and 5 per 10 000 person years, respectively), but the incidence of chest pain attributed to a non-coronary cause remained stable (37-40 per 10 000 person years). Risk of cardiovascular events did not change over time.Conclusions Most patients with first onset chest pain do not have a diagnosis recorded at presentation or in the subsequent six months, including those who undergo cardiac investigations. These patients have an increased risk of cardiovascular events for at least five years. Efforts to better assess and reduce the cardiovascular risk of such patients are warranted.

Project description:ImportanceCardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. To improve cardiovascular outcomes, primary care must have valid methods of assessing performance on cardiovascular clinical quality measures, including aspirin use (aspirin measure), blood pressure control (BP measure), and smoking cessation counseling and intervention (smoking measure).ObjectiveTo compare observed performance scores measured using 2 imperfect reference standard data sources (medical record abstraction [MRA] and electronic health record [EHR]-generated reports) with misclassification-adjusted performance scores obtained using bayesian latent class analysis.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used a subset of the 2016 aspirin, BP, and smoking performance data from the Healthy Hearts for Oklahoma Project. Each clinical quality measure was calculated for a subset of a practice's patient population who can benefit from recommended care (ie, the eligible population). A random sample of 380 eligible patients were included for the aspirin measure; 126, for the BP measure; and 115, for the smoking measure. Data were collected from 21 primary care practices belonging to a single large health care system from January 1 to December 31, 2018, and analyzed from February 21 to April 17, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes include performance scores for the aspirin, BP, and smoking measures using imperfect MRA and EHRs and estimated through bayesian latent class models.ResultsA total of 621 eligible patients were included in the analysis. Based on MRA and EHR data, observed aspirin performance scores were 76.0% (95% bayesian credible interval [BCI], 71.5%-80.1%) and 74.9% (95% BCI, 70.4%-79.1%), respectively; observed BP performance scores, 80.6% (95% BCI, 73.2%-86.9%) and 75.1% (95% BCI, 67.2%-82.1%), respectively; and observed smoking performance scores, 85.7% (95% BCI, 78.6%-91.2%) and 75.4% (95% BCI, 67.0%-82.6%), respectively. Misclassification-adjusted estimates were 74.9% (95% BCI, 70.5%-79.1%) for the aspirin performance score, 75.0% (95% BCI, 66.6%-82.5%) for the BP performance score, and 83.0% (95% BCI, 74.4%-89.8%) for the smoking performance score.Conclusions and relevanceEnsuring valid performance measurement is critical for value-based payment models and quality improvement activities in primary care. This study found that extracting information for the same individuals using different data sources generated different performance score estimates. Further research is required to identify the sources of these differences.

Project description:ObjectivesRecent sepsis studies have defined patients as "infected" using a combination of culture and antibiotic orders rather than billing data. However, the accuracy of these definitions is unclear. We aimed to compare the accuracy of different established criteria for identifying infected patients using detailed chart review.DesignRetrospective observational study.SettingSix hospitals from three health systems in Illinois.PatientsAdult admissions with blood culture or antibiotic orders, or Angus International Classification of Diseases infection codes and death were eligible for study inclusion as potentially infected patients. Nine-hundred to 1,000 of these admissions were randomly selected from each health system for chart review, and a proportional number of patients who did not meet chart review eligibility criteria were also included and deemed not infected.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsThe accuracy of published billing code criteria by Angus et al and electronic health record criteria by Rhee et al and Seymour et al (Sepsis-3) was determined using the manual chart review results as the gold standard. A total of 5,215 patients were included, with 2,874 encounters analyzed via chart review and a proportional 2,341 added who did not meet chart review eligibility criteria. In the study cohort, 27.5% of admissions had at least one infection. This was most similar to the percentage of admissions with blood culture orders (26.8%), Angus infection criteria (28.7%), and the Sepsis-3 criteria (30.4%). Sepsis-3 criteria was the most sensitive (81%), followed by Angus (77%) and Rhee (52%), while Rhee (97%) and Angus (90%) were more specific than the Sepsis-3 criteria (89%). Results were similar for patients with organ dysfunction during their admission.ConclusionsPublished criteria have a wide range of accuracy for identifying infected patients, with the Sepsis-3 criteria being the most sensitive and Rhee criteria being the most specific. These findings have important implications for studies investigating the burden of sepsis on a local and national level.

Dataset Information

Determining cardiovascular risk in patients with unattributed chest pain in UK primary care: an electronic health record study.

Aims

Methods and results

Conclusion

Publications

Determining cardiovascular risk in patients with unattributed chest pain in UK primary care: an electronic health record study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets