Abstract
Cognitive impairment is common in patients with heart failure, but to which extent cognitive complaints are evaluated and listed in clinical practice is unknown. Therefore, this study aims to identify whether cognitive complaints are listed in clinical notes of patients with heart failure, consistent with listed complaints in clinical notes of patients attending memory clinics, by using natural language processing (NLP) techniques. Patients with heart failure and patients attending a memory outpatient clinic were identified by using echocardiography reports and presence of memory outpatient clinic codes stored in the Utrecht Individual-Oriented Database (UPOD) from 2011 to 2023. Named Entity Detection and Linking (NER+L) strategies MedCAT and MedCATTrainer were used to extract listed complaints in clinical notes by patient group, and it was assessed whether cognitive complaints were listed in clinical notes of patients with heart failure. Among 5803 patients with heart failure, dyspnea (57.1%), chest pain (48.4%), and oedema (43.6%) were the most listed complaints. In 967 patients attending memory clinics, memory problem (80.9%), getting lost (24.1%), and being morose (22.5%) were the most listed complaints. Notably, in patients with heart failure, the reporting of memory problems was low at 2.6%. This study shows a low reporting frequency of cognitive complaints in clinical notes of patients with heart failure, even though both conditions often co-occur according to cross-sectional studies. This points towards a potential underrecognition of cognitive complaints in patients with heart failure during clinical practice.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work is part of the Heart-Brain Connection crossroads (HBCx) consortium of the Dutch CardioVascular Alliance (DCVA). HBCx has received funding from the Dutch Heart Foundation under grant agreements 201828 and CVON 201206.
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:
The ethics of our study was reviewed by the Medical Ethics Committee NedMec (METC NedMec). METC NedMec is a recognized Medical Research Ethics Committee in the Netherlands, formed through a collaboration between UMC Utrecht, Prinses Máxima Centrum for pediatric oncology, and the Antoni van Leeuwenhoek institute. As our research involves retrospective analysis of electronic health records (EHR) and does not fall under the scope of the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO), the committee determined that formal ethical approval was not required (waived). Furthermore, in line with GDPR Article 14(5)(b), individual patient consent was not required due to the disproportionate effort involved in contacting all individuals. Data management specialists from an ISO 9001 certified database (Utrecht Patient-Oriented Database) extracted, pseudonymized and securely stored the data. As we worked with electronic health records collected with an IRB waiver for informed consent from NedMec, under the disproportionate effort clause, I will not be able to share data with others.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
s we worked with electronic health records collected with an IRB waiver for informed consent from NedMec, under the disproportionate effort clause, I will not be able to share data with others.
