A Time-Insensitive Predictive Instrument for Acute Myocardial Infarction Mortality: A Multicenter Study

This study develops a “time-insensitive” predictive instrument for acute myocardial infarction mortality that would be useful both as a real-time clinical decision aid in the emergency medical setting and also for retrospective assessment and comparison of medical care based on risk-adjusted mortality predictions. This was done using prospectively-collected data on 5,773 patients with chief complaints of chest pain or other symptoms suggesting acute cardiac ischemia who came to six New England hospitals over a 2-year period. In phase one, based upon 4,099 patients, multivariate logistic regression was used to develop the predictive instrument. In phase two, its accuracy and diagnostic performance were tested on an independent sample of 1,387 patients presenting with symptoms compatible with acute cardiac ischemia. Discrimination between patients who lived and those who died was reflected by receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve areas of 0.85, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively, for all emergency department study subjects regardless of final diagnosis, subjects who proved to be having acute cardiac ischemia, and subjects who proved to be having acute infarction. Good calibration was shown by the fact that the predicted mortality was found to not vary significantly from actual mortality rates across deciles of predicted probabilities from 0% to 100%. In phase three, based on all 945 study subjects with acute myocardial infarction, each of the six hospitals' actual mortality rates were compared to their rates predicted by the predictive instrument. Actual hospital mortality rates ranged from 9.9% to 19.3%, with one hospital having a significantly higher rate (P = 0.005) and two hospitals having significantly lower rates than the remaining hospitals (P=0.003 for both). Predicted mortality rates ranged from 13.4% to 19.4%, with one hospital having a significantly higher predicted rate (P=0.005) and two hospitals having significantly lower predicted rates (P=0.04 and P=0.03). Individual hospitals' differences between actual and predicted mortality ranged from -3.4% to +3.1% (all NS). When grouped by hospital type, the actual mortality rates were 14.9%, 17.3%, and 13.0%, respectively, for urban teaching, smaller city teaching, and rural nonteaching hospitals (all NS). The predicted mortality rates were 16.5%, 17.1%, and 13.6%, respectively, with the rate for rural nonteaching hospitals being significantly lower (P=0.009). No hospital type had significant differences between their actual and predicted mortality rates (NS). The time-insensitive predictive instrument for acute infarction mortality shows potential for risk-adjusted studies of hospitals mortality for multihospital groups, hospital- to-hospital comparisons, and within-hospital assessment. Once further validated for retrospective and real-time use, it should be attractive to those who should be working together, i.e., clinicians, administrators, consumers, and health care payors.

[1]  E. Keeler,et al.  Interpreting Hospital Mortality Data , 1988 .

[2]  L I Iezzoni,et al.  A clinical assessment of MedisGroups. , 1988, JAMA.

[3]  R H Brook,et al.  Explaining variations in hospital death rates. Randomness, severity of illness, quality of care. , 1990, JAMA.

[4]  P Sharkey,et al.  The importance of severity of illness in assessing hospital mortality. , 1990, JAMA.

[5]  W. Knaus,et al.  APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. , 1985 .

[6]  H P Selker,et al.  Coronary care unit triage decision aids: how do we know when they work? , 1989, The American journal of medicine.

[7]  Jacobs Cm,et al.  MEDISGRPS: a clinically based approach to classifying hospital patients at admission. , 1985 .

[8]  D Draper,et al.  Interpreting hospital mortality data. How can we proceed? , 1988, JAMA.

[9]  R B D'Agostino,et al.  A predictive instrument to improve coronary-care-unit admission practices in acute ischemic heart disease. A prospective multicenter clinical trial. , 1984, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  R. Elashoff,et al.  Flaws in mortality data. The hazards of ignoring comorbid disease. , 1988, JAMA.

[11]  R H Brook,et al.  Preventable deaths: who, how often, and why? , 1988, Annals of internal medicine.

[12]  S. Schroeder.  Outcome assessment 70 years later: are we ready? , 1987, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  W. Knaus,et al.  An evaluation of outcome from intensive care in major medical centers. , 1986, Annals of internal medicine.

[14]  D Draper,et al.  Predicting hospital-associated mortality for Medicare patients. A method for patients with stroke, pneumonia, acute myocardial infarction, and congestive heart failure. , 1988, JAMA.

[15]  D. Berwick,et al.  Hospital leaders' opinions of the HCFA mortality data. , 1990, JAMA.

[16]  G. Diamond,et al.  Medical therapy of acute myocardial infarction by application of hemodynamic subsets (first of two parts). , 1976, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  R M Centor,et al.  Eualuating Physicians' Probabilistic Judgments , 1988, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[18]  R M Centor,et al.  An Evaluation of Methods for Estimating the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve , 1985, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[19]  W. Knaus,et al.  Predicting and evaluating patient outcomes. , 1988, Annals of internal medicine.

[20]  Harry P. Selker,et al.  A Tool for Judging Coronary Care Unit Admission Appropriateness, Valid for Both Real-Time and Retrospective Use: A Time-Insensitive Predictive Instrument (TIPI) for Acute Cardiac Ischemia: A Multicenter Study , 1991, Medical care.

[21]  R. D'Agostino,et al.  A predictive instrument for acute ischemic heart disease to improve coronary care unit admission practices: a potential on-line tool in a computerized electrocardiograph. , 1988, Journal of electrocardiology.

[22]  D Draper,et al.  Interpreting hospital mortality data. The role of clinical risk adjustment. , 1988, JAMA.

[23]  T. Killip,et al.  Treatment of myocardial infarction in a coronary care unit. A two year experience with 250 patients. , 1967, The American journal of cardiology.