Information
Phenotype ID: 
147
Date Created: 
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Status: 
Final
Do Not List on the Collaboration Phenotypes List
Contact information
Authors: 
Suzette J. Bielinski
Institution: 
Mayo Clinic
Network Associations: 
eMERGE
View Phenotyping Groups: 
eMERGE Phenotype WG
Owner Phenotyping Groups: 
eMERGE Mayo Group
Unstructured Data: 
NLP
Structured data: 
CPT
ICD9
Data Source/clinical domain: 
observations
medications
Demographics
Gender: 
Female
Male
Age: 
Adult
Files: 
File HF Validation Spreadsheet.xlsx
PDF icon Liu_CRI2013_0121_revised.pdf
File Heart Failure Validation Guidelines 11132013.docx
File Data Dictionary for Case/Non-Case Algorithm
Microsoft Office document icon Pseudo Code for Case/Non-Case Version of Heart Failure Algorithm
PDF icon Pseudo Code for Cohort Version of Heart Failure Algorithm
File Data Dictionary for Cohort Version of Heart Failure Algorithm

Suggested Citation

Suzette J. Bielinski. Mayo Clinic. Heart Failure (HF) with Differentiation between Preserved and Reduced Ejection Fraction. PheKB; 2013 Available from: https://phekb.org/phenotype/147

David Carrell

Mon, 2013-04-01 12:32

Hi,

Any information on when the HF NLP system will be availble, or if it is ready now where we can download it?

Thanks,

David

Jen Pacheco

Wed, 2013-09-04 17:01

1) in 1 of our main systems ICD-9 codes are what is recorded in the Problem List (PL); thus, should we look for ICD-9 codes 428.* to find pts meeting the PL part of the case criteria?

 

2) In some of the echo results there is no numeric EF (ejection fraction), only a descriptive word such as: normal/abnormal, low/moderate/severe, or reduced/decreased.  This occurs for ~1,000 of our ~2,000 genotyped pts w/ EF measures, of which ~100 pts only have this type of result.  How would you want us to categorize these cases, if they turn out to be cases otherwise?  i.e., if normal then type 2, else throw them out?

Thanks!

Jen

David Carrell

Tue, 2013-09-24 14:19

Hi,

When conducting manual chart review validation of heart failure cases, if the manual review confirms that the patient has HF but the **index date** identified by manual review differs from the index date identified by the automated algorithm, how do you want us to classify this case for validation purposes (confirmed by manual review or not confirmed by manual review)? Does it matter how much difference there is between the two index dates, and if so, how much it too much of a difference?

Thanks,

David

Sue Bielinski

Wed, 2013-11-20 11:25

We took a rather liberal approach as we found this as well.  If the dates were reasonably close (arbitrary) w/i a year we accepted.  As heart failure is a syndrome and exact date is not critical.

Jacqueline Kirby

Thu, 2013-11-14 09:10

I saw this moved from Testing to Validated, but I don't see any validation results.  Has GHC, the secondary site, completed it's

validation?  Is this ready to be implemented by the Network?

Thanks,

Jacqueline

 

 

David Carrell

Fri, 2013-11-15 18:16

Our validation is uderway.  Controls validatated with a PPV of 100% (random sample of N=25 subjects).  Cases are being validated now.  Six of 27 charts selected for validation have been completed and all of them validated.  Keeping fingers crossed for the remaining cases.

-David

David Carrell

Fri, 2013-11-15 18:19

In the Excel data dictionary, please specify an"as of" date for vital status (which is coded as alive or dead).  Is it Case Date?  Data pull date?  etc...

Thanks

 

  VITAL STATUS Vital Status of Subject C37987 Alive
C28554 Dead

Sue Bielinski

Wed, 2013-11-20 11:26

I am editing the DD to state "as of data pull"

Jacqueline Kirby

Wed, 2014-02-05 11:18

Is it correct to interpret:

"Lowest EF measured 6 months after the HF date."

as

 the lowest Ejection fraction measured 0-6 months after the HF_date

 

Sue Bielinski

Sat, 2014-02-08 14:44

Yes that is correct

Jacqueline Kirby

Tue, 2014-02-11 15:30

I just wanted to confirm about two situations for determining ejection fractions:

 

1.  In our documents we have instances of "Normal" instead of a numeric value.  If this is the qualifying EF, so we consider it Case type 2?

2.  In our parsing algorithm, if there is a range for EF, eg 40-55, we take the average of the range as the EF value.  Will this work for this algorithm?  Note, if we need to change this, this will involve alot more effort to completing this.

 

Thanks,

Jacqueline 

Sue Bielinski

Tue, 2014-02-11 15:35

Yes for both questions.  Consider as case 2 for those with normal listed and average when a range is provided. 

Thanks

Sue

Jacqueline Kirby

Fri, 2014-02-21 11:34

1. For the BMI file, you ask for Weight in Pounds and Height in inches, but the dd standard in eMERGE tends to have this sent as kg and cm.  Is there a reason you changed this? Do you need us to covert this, or can we send as kg and cm?

2. For HF_MI_Rep_measurement - I am confused by this formate.  We may have multiple dates for each ICD type.  I am not sure how you are wanting a row to be lined up?  Because for example I may have 5 410s, 2 412s, 1 413, and no 414, how should this be represented?

OR should we send a ICD file with id, ICD code name, and ICD date for icds in your list?

Thanks, 

Jacqueline

 

Jacqueline Kirby

Fri, 2014-02-28 09:29

1. LAST_FU_DATE - We don't have followup data as a structured field.  How are you defining this?  Follow-up from EF?  If so, which one?  Or just last date of some clinic visit?

2. For EF, you say you want this field of be an interger.  Our EF data has alot of things in it that are not just #, eg. "Normal" or ranges or some > some value.  Do you only want integer EFs or should we send everything?

Thanks, 

Jacqueline

 

 

Sue Bielinski

Fri, 2014-02-28 12:16

1.  For FU, groups are either using a date from registration or last encounter/visit date. 

2.  Integer prefered - if a range is given, provide only the lowest number.  If the only EF listed is normal, then indicate that - these patients will be considered Type 2 HF (normal = EF > 50%).

 

 

Sue Bielinski

Tue, 2014-03-04 13:27

I have upload new versions of the data dictionary and pseudo code that address the issue of ejection fraction (EF) results being only reported as free text (e.g. normal/abnormal).  Furthermore, units for weight and height were changed to kg and cm per eMERGE standard procedure. 

 

Thanks

 

Sue

David Carrell

Tue, 2014-04-15 12:16

Hi,

Can you please provide RAW VALUE and FORMATTED VALUE specs in the data dictionary for all fields?   Examples where these specs are missing are HF_INDEX_DATE, HF_INDEX_EF (among others) in the HF_SUBJECT table (but the specs are missing from other tables too).

Thanks!

 

 

David Carrell

Tue, 2014-04-15 12:22

Meant to suggest ISO 8601 format as a standard for representing calendar dates as strings (e.g,. today's date would be the string "2014-04-15").

 

 

 

 

Sue Bielinski

Fri, 2016-07-15 13:36

We have streamlined the data dictionaries to limit to those variables needed in the GWAS analsyes.  Everything has been updated on PheKb

Sue Bielinski

Thu, 2016-08-04 09:04

We edited the Data dictionary to allow for missing values of EF per the phentoype meeting 8/3/2016.  The values are still required but for those with missing data please code as follows. 

.=missing/unknown/unassessed/non-applicable