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.