Table 2.
Category | HF based on clinician’s diagnosis | Calculated epidemiological measures | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algorithm-based HF | HF, all | HFrEF | HFmrEF | HFpEF | No HF | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Accuracy |
HF, all | 63 | 18 | 17 | 28 | 25 | 100% | 32% | 72% | 100% | 75% |
HFrEF | 17 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 94% | 100% | 100% | 99% | 99% |
HFmrEF | 19 | 1 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 100% | 96% | 85% | 100% | 97% |
HFpEF | 27 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 24 | 96% | 67% | 53% | 98% | 75% |
No HF | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 32% | 100% | 100% | 72% | 75% |
The algorithm defined ‘No HF’ as EF ≥ 50% and proBNP ≤ 125 ng/ml, ‘HF’ as any HF subtype present, ‘HFrEF’ as EF < 40%, ‘HFmrEF’ as EF 40–49% and ‘HFpEF’ as EF ≥ 50% and proBNP ≥ 125 ng/ml, using EF values mined by the algorithm. The clinician made the diagnosis of HF subtype based on EHR text, EF report and proBNP values
Abbreviations: EF, ejection fraction; HF, heart failure; HFrEF, HF with reduced EF; HFmrEF, HF with mildly reduced EF; HFpEF, HF with preserved EF; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; proBNP, N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide