Datawarehouse-enabled quality control of atrial fibrillation detection in the stroke unit setting.
Alarm fatigue
Atrial fibrillation
Automated detection
Clinical data warehouse
ECG monitoring
Quality control
Stroke unit
Journal
Heliyon
ISSN: 2405-8440
Titre abrégé: Heliyon
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101672560
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2023
Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
26
04
2023
revised:
13
07
2023
accepted:
17
07
2023
medline:
3
8
2023
pubmed:
3
8
2023
entrez:
3
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
(1) To assess the accuracy of a standard operating procedure (SOP) regarding the utilization of atrial fibrillation (AF) alarms in everyday clinical practice, and (2) to evaluate the performance of automated continuous surveillance for atrial fibrillation (AF) in hospitalized acute stroke patients. Retrospective cohort study. Two stroke units from two tertiary care hospitals in Berlin, Germany. We identified 635 patients with ischemic stroke diagnosis for the time period between 01. January and 30. September 2021 of which 176 patients had recorded AF alarms during monitoring. Of those, 115 patients were randomly selected for evaluation. After excluding 6 patients with hemorrhagic stroke in their records, 109 patients (mean age: 79.1 years, median NIHSS at admission: 6, 57% female) remained for analysis. Using a clinical data warehouse for comprehensive data storage we retrospectively downloaded and visualized ECG data segments of 65 s duration around the automated AF alarms. We restricted the maximum number of ECG segments to ten per patient. Each ECG segment plot was uploaded into a REDCap database and categorized as either AF, non-AF or artifact by manual review. Atrial flutter was subsumed as AF. These classifications were then matched with 1) medical history and known diseases before stroke, 2) discharge diagnosis, and 3) recommended treatment plan in the medical history using electronic health records. The primary outcome was the proportion of previously unknown AF diagnoses correctly identified by the monitoring system but missed by the clinical team during hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis of AF would likely have led to anticoagulant therapy. We also evaluated the accuracy of the automated detection system in terms of its positive predictive value (PPV). We evaluated a total of 717 ECG alarm segments from 109 patients. In 4 patients (3.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-9.68%) physicians had missed AF despite at least one true positive alarm. All four patients did not receive long-term secondary prevention in form of anticoagulant therapy. 427 out of 717 alarms were rated true positives, resulting in a positive predictive value of 0.6 (CI 0.56-0.63) in this cohort. By connecting a data warehouse, electronic health records and a REDCap survey tool, we introduce a path to assess the monitoring quality of AF in acute stroke patients. We find that implemented standards of procedure to detect AF during stroke unit care are effective but leave room for improvement. Such data warehouse-based concepts may help to adjust internal processes or identify targets of further investigations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37534004
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18432
pii: S2405-8440(23)05640-2
pmc: PMC10391946
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e18432Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
CM is part of patent applications to detect and predict clinical outcomes and to manage, diagnose, and treat neurological conditions, all of which are outside the submitted work. CHN received research grants from German Ministry of Research and Education, German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, German Center for cardiovascular Research, and speaker and/or consultation fees from Abbott, Alexion, Astra Zeneca, Bayer Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer Pharma, Portola and Takeda all outside the submitted work. ME reports grants from Bayer and fees paid to the Charité from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Sanofi, Covidien, Novartis, Pfizer, all outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest or competing interests to declare.
Références
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2019 Aug;28(8):2159-2167
pubmed: 31103554
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020 Apr;29(4):104669
pubmed: 32057653
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2017;43(3-4):192-199
pubmed: 28208140
Ann Intern Med. 2007 Jun 19;146(12):857-67
pubmed: 17577005
Neurology. 2011 Sep 6;77(10):965-72
pubmed: 21865573
Stroke. 2013 Jan;44(1):99-104
pubmed: 23168456
Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2015 Dec;17(12):66
pubmed: 26486510
Eur J Neurol. 2020 Feb;27(2):244-250
pubmed: 31424609
Stroke. 2020 Jan;51(1):262-267
pubmed: 31842722
Am J Crit Care. 2018 Jan;27(1):11-21
pubmed: 29292271
Stroke. 2012 Oct;43(10):2689-94
pubmed: 22871678
Stroke. 2019 Dec;50(12):e344-e418
pubmed: 31662037
Stroke. 2021 Jul;52(7):e364-e467
pubmed: 34024117
Eur Heart J. 2021 Feb 1;42(5):373-498
pubmed: 32860505
Eur Stroke J. 2022 Sep;7(3):VI
pubmed: 36082257
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208
pubmed: 31078660
Int J Stroke. 2018 Feb;13(2):117-120
pubmed: 29125055
N Engl J Med. 2014 Jun 26;370(26):2467-77
pubmed: 24963566
Stroke. 2018 Dec;49(12):2933-2944
pubmed: 30571400
Lancet. 2014 Mar 15;383(9921):955-62
pubmed: 24315724
Lancet Neurol. 2015 Apr;14(4):377-87
pubmed: 25748102