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 1a

70.4 (65.1–75.3)

84.4 (81.3–87.1)

69.1 (63.8–74.0)

85.1 (82.2–87.8)

Algorithm 2b

69.4 (64.1–74.4)

85.7 (82.8–88.3)

70.8 (65.4–75.7)

85.0 (82.0–87.6)

Algorithm 3

70.4 (65.1–75.3)

85.4 (82.5–88.1)

70.6 (65.3–75.5)

85.3 (82.4–87.9)

Algorithm 4

69.4 (64.1–74.4)

86.7 (83.8–89.2)

72.1 (66.8–77.0)

85.1 (82.2–87.7)

Algorithm 5

70.4 (65.1–75.3)

86.0 (83.1–88.6)

71.5 (66.2–76.4)

85.4 (82.5–88.0)

Algorithm 6

69.4 (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.