Diagnostic Criteria for Hospitalized Acute Myocardial Infarction: The Minnesota Experience
Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455. International Journal of Epidemiology
(Impact Factor: 9.18).
04/1989; 18(1):76-83. DOI: 10.1093/ije/18.1.76
Standardized diagnostic algorithms are needed for systematic surveillance of hospitalized acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Ambiguities in diagnostic classification are resolvable to the extent that objective information is available in the hospital chart. In this study of diagnostic algorithms, serum cardiac enzyme levels, especially creatine kinase total (CK-TOT) and creatine kinase myocardial band (CK-MB) isoenzyme, were most closely correlated with the physician-reviewer diagnostic assignment used for validation; chest pain and electrocardiographic findings were less closely correlated. In addition, a close relationship was noted between the clinician's diagnostic impression and testing procedures and the final hospital discharge diagnosis. Thus, the algorithm should include discharge diagnosis as a classification element. The algorithm for cases discharged as acute myocardial infarction should be very sensitive, tending to call cases acute myocardial infarction. Other discharge diagnoses may harbour some clinically unrecognized myocardial infarction cases; however, the algorithm for such cases should be restrictive and specific to minimize false positives. These findings indicate optimal ways of combining clinical characteristics to most completely and accurately identify cases of acute myocardial infarction based on hospital records examined in retrospect.
Available from: PubMed Central
- "After approval by the Olmsted Medical Center and the Mayo Foundation Institutional Review Boards, each Olmsted County man or woman identified with a diagnostic code for an AMI between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 2001 had that diagnosis verified based on Gillum's previously published and validated AMI criteria used in several large national AMI research studies.[17,61,62] We chose to use these very specific research criteria to assure that patients had experienced an AMI.[5,62] "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: CHD is a chronic disease often present years prior to incident AMI. Earlier recognition of CHD may be associated with higher levels of recognition and treatment of CHD risk factors that may delay incident AMI. To assess timing of CHD and CHD risk factor diagnoses prior to incident AMI.
This is a 10-year population based medical record review study that included all medical care providers in Olmsted County, Minnesota for all women and a sample of men residing in Olmsted County, MN with confirmed incident AMI between 1995 and 2000.
All medical care for the 10 years prior to incident AMI was reviewed for 150 women and 148 men (38% sample) in Olmsted County, MN. On average, women were older than men at the time of incident AMI (74.7 versus 65.9 years, p < 0.0001). 30.4% of the men and 52.0% of the women received diagnoses of CHD prior to incident AMI (p = 0.0002). Unrecognized and untreated CHD risk factors were present in both men (45% of men 5 years prior to AMI) and women (22% of women 5 years prior to first AMI), more common in men and those without a diagnosis of CHD prior to incident AMI (p < 0.0001).
A CHD diagnosis prior to incident AMI is associated with higher rates of recognition and treatment of CHD risk factors suggesting that diagnosing CHD prior to AMI enhances opportunities to lower the risk of future CHD events.
BMC Family Practice 04/2007; 8:18. DOI:10.1186/1471-2296-8-18 · 1.67 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A new approach to surveillance of myocardial infarction, the major cardiovascular endpoint is described using an algorithm which depends primarily on enzyme data, using evidence of chest pain and positive electrocardiogram findings as supplemental information only. This approach is evaluated with respect to reproducibility by minimally trained abstractors, cost, and robustness with respect to different hospital systems as well as changes in diagnostic techniques and/or labelling over time. Two pilot studies demonstrate that, in comparison to more traditional approaches, the new surveillance system provides at least a 50% reduction in cost, is highly reproducible over different hospital systems, and potentially, is resilient to changes in diagnostic procedures or coding. The more general applicability of such an innovative surveillance approach to other disease endpoints, in which one reliable procedure contains most of the diagnostic information, is discussed with particular reference to cancer.
International Journal of Epidemiology 04/1989; 18(1):67-75. DOI:10.1093/ije/18.1.67 · 9.18 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The population-based Augsburg Coronary Event Register (330,000 residents, age 25-74 years) has registered a total of 1012 cases of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in 1985 and 1021 AMI in 1986 and categorized them on the basis of the current WHO diagnostic algorithm for AMI. The register is designed for longitudinal comparisons of annual AMI risk (incidence, attack rate, death rate), and the risk to the AMI patients themselves (28-day case fatality). The methodology and specific issues encountered during registration and data evaluation are described. With an estimated 95% completeness of case finding, the quality control data review which the register conducts annually shows a consistency of specific data structures which indicate stable case finding and validation procedures. However, local conditions which affect case finding and data completeness per case are responsible for the creation of subsets of AMI which are in turn distinguished by differences in diagnostic category structures. With regard to the study objectives, the differences among subsets appear to have the least effect on rate calculations if DEFINITE and POSSIBLE AMI are combined. The implications of methodological variations and subset differences within and across registers on annual rate calculations and result comparisons are discussed.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 02/1991; 44(3):249-60. DOI:10.1016/0895-4356(91)90036-9 · 3.42 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.