Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKarim, M.
dc.contributor.authorReid, Christopher
dc.contributor.authorCochrane, A.
dc.contributor.authorTran, L.
dc.contributor.authorBillah, B.
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-30T15:32:48Z
dc.date.available2017-01-30T15:32:48Z
dc.date.created2015-11-04T20:00:35Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.citationKarim, M. and Reid, C. and Cochrane, A. and Tran, L. and Billah, B. 2015. When is 'Urgent' Really Urgent and Does it Matter? Misclassification of Procedural Status and Implications for Risk Assessment in Cardiac Surgery. Heart Lung and Circulation. 25 (2): pp. 196-203.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/47347
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.hlc.2015.07.003
dc.description.abstract

© 2015 Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ). Background: Many patients classified as "urgent" in Australia New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) registry contradict the prescribed definition (surgery within 72. hours of angiogram or unplanned admission). The aim was to examine the impacts of this misclassification on the prediction of 30-day mortality following cardiac surgery. Methods: The 'reported clinical status' was compared with a 'corrected clinical status' following reclassification based on the standard definition calculated from raw data. Observed-to-predicted risk ratios (OPRs) of 30-day mortality were calculated for the model using reported status and corrected status and compared. A Bland-Altman plot was generated to examine the level of agreement between the two OPRs. Results: Of 18496 cases reported as urgent, 49.9% were operated after 72. hours, leading to misclassification of 14.6% in the registry. Misclassified patients had significantly higher mortality (3.5%) than true urgent patients (2.9%). Underweight (OR:1.6,CI:1.2-2.1), dialysis (OR:1.4,CI:1.1-1.7), endocarditis (OR:2.1,CI:1.7-2.5), shock (OR:1.6,CI:1.3-2.0) and poor ejection fraction (OR:1.2,CI:1.1-1.4) were significant predictors of misclassification. Bland- Altman plot demonstrates significant disagreement between two risk estimates (P<0.001). Misclassification results in overestimation of risk by 9.1%. OPR increased with corrected definition (0.8975 vs 0.9875), suggesting poorer calibration with reported status. Conclusions: In the ANZSCTS database, misclassification prevalence is 14.6%. Misclassification compromises the discrimination capacity and calibration of the model and results in overestimation of mortality risk.

dc.publisherElsevier Ltd
dc.titleWhen is 'Urgent' Really Urgent and Does it Matter? Misclassification of Procedural Status and Implications for Risk Assessment in Cardiac Surgery
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.source.issn1443-9506
dcterms.source.titleHeart Lung and Circulation
curtin.departmentDepartment of Health Policy and Management
curtin.accessStatusFulltext not available


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record