Abstract
Background Clinical decision support tools for atrial fibrillation (AF) should include CHA2DS2- VASc scores to guide oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment.
Objective We compared automated, electronic medical record (EMR) generated CHA2DS2- VASc scores to clinician-documented scores, and report the resulting proportions of patients in the OAC treatment group.
Methods Patients were included if they had both a clinician documented and EMR-generated CHA2DS2-VASc score on the same day. EMR scores were based on billing codes, left ventricular ejection fraction from echocardiograms, and demographics; documented scores were identified using natural language processing. Patients were deemed “re-classified” if the EMR score was ≥2 but the documented score was <2, and vice versa. For the overall cohort and subgroups (sex and age group), we compared mean scores using paired t-tests and re-classification rates using chi-squared tests.
Results Among 5,767 patients, the mean scores were higher using EMR compared to documented scores (4.05 [SD 2.1] versus 3.13 [SD 1.8]; p<0.01) for the full cohort, and all subgroups (p<0.01 for all comparisons). If EMR scores were used to determine OAC treatment instead of documented scores, 8.3% (n=479, p<0.01) of patients would be re-classified, with 7.2% moving into and 1.1% moving out of the treatment group. Among 2,322 women, 4.7% (n=109, p<0.01) would be re-classified, with 4.1% into and 0.7% out of the treatment group. Among 3,445 men, 10.7% (n=370, p<0.01) would be re-classified, with 9.2% into and 1.5% out of the treatment group. Among 2,060 patients <65 years old, 18.1% (n=372, p<0.01) would be re-classified, with 15.8% into and 2.3% out of the treatment group. Among 1,877 patients 65-74 years old, 5.4% (n=101, p<0.01) would be re-classified, with 4.4% into and 1.0% out of the treatment group. Among 1,830 patients ≥75 years old, <1% would move into to the treatment group and none would move out of the treatment group.
Conclusions EMR-based CHA2DS2-VASc scores were, on average, almost a full point higher than the clinician-documented scores. Using EMR scores in lieu of documented scores would result in a significant proportion of patients moving into the treatment group, with the highest re-classifications rates in men and patients <65 years old.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work and Dr. Shah are supported by a grant from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, under award number K08HL136850.
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 retrospective study was approved by the University of Utah 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/Conflicts of Interest: This work and Dr. Shah are supported by a grant from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, under award number K08HL136850.
Dr. Steinberg is supported by the National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K23HL143156; receives research support from Boston Scientific and Janssen; consulting to Janssen, Bayer, and Merit Medical; speaking for NACCME (funded by Sanofi).
Data Availability
This protected patient information will not be available to others.
