Skip to main content

Table 4 Accuracy of different algorithms to detect POAF

From: Validation of an algorithm based on administrative data to detect new onset of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery

 Sensitivity % (95% CI)Specificity % (95% CI)PPV % (95% CI)NPV % (95% CI)
Algorithm 1a70.4 (65.1–75.3)84.4 (81.3–87.1)69.1 (63.8–74.0)85.1 (82.2–87.8)
Algorithm 2b69.4 (64.1–74.4)85.7 (82.8–88.3)70.8 (65.4–75.7)85.0 (82.0–87.6)
Algorithm 370.4 (65.1–75.3)85.4 (82.5–88.1)70.6 (65.3–75.5)85.3 (82.4–87.9)
Algorithm 469.4 (64.1–74.4)86.7 (83.8–89.2)72.1 (66.8–77.0)85.1 (82.2–87.7)
Algorithm 570.4 (65.1–75.3)86.0 (83.1–88.6)71.5 (66.2–76.4)85.4 (82.5–88.0)
Algorithm 669.4 (64.1–74.4)87.3 (84.5–89.7)73.1 (67.8–77.9)85.2 (82.3–87.8)
  1. Abbreviations: AF Atrial fibrillation, NPV Negative predictive value, PPV Positive predictive value, 95% CI 95% confidence interval
  2. aAlgorithm 1, 3, and 5 all included ICD codes I48.0, I48.1 and I48.90 to identify possible cases of POAF. They differed on the look-back window used to exclude patients with a history of AF: 1 year, 3 years, and 6 years for Algorithm 1, 3, and 5, respectively.
  3. bAlgorithm 2, 4, and 6 all included ICD codes I48.0, I48.1 and I48.90 to identify possible cases of POAF. They differed on the look-back window used to exclude patients with a history of AF: 1 year, 3 years, and 6 years for Algorithm 2, 4, and 6. In these algorithms, all patients who received a maze procedure at the time of their cardiac surgery were considered POAF-negatives.