Analysis and evaluation of healthcare delivery to patients with coronary artery disease using PC-based medical data
https://doi.org/10.15829/1728-8800-2020-2546
Abstract
Aim. Using PC-based medical information technologies, analyze and evaluate inpatient and outpatient care for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) with the development and testing of machine learning algorithms.
Material and methods. In 2017, 586 patients with myocardial infarction (MI) under the age of 70 years were identified according to the electronic database of the Uniform State Health Information System. Of these, 349 patients received reperfusion therapy, and 237 did not. In all 586 patients, lethal outcomes, hospital and ICU length of stay were determined. In 342 out of 586 patients after MI, using PC-based medical data, number of completed outpatient treatment cases, ambulance calls, and emergency hospitalizations for CAD were identified. According to the Uniform State Health Information System, the dynamics of heart failure (HF) and angina class was determined in patients at the end of the year.
Results. In patients with reperfusion therapy, in comparison with MI patients without it, significantly shorter hospital (13,17±0,17 vs 15,35±0,46 days) and ICU (1,73±0,06 vs 2,56±0,29 days) length of stay, as well as significantly lower (2,9 times) mortality. In the post-infarction period, there were no differences between these groups in the number of completed cases of outpatient CAD treatment and ambulance calls due to CAD. The number of emergency hospitalizations was significantly (1,4 times) more in the group of patients who did not receive reperfusion therapy. In both groups of patients, there was a positive dynamic in angina class and HF stage.
Conclusion. PC-based personalized medical services are informative material for assessing the results of inpatient and outpatient care for patients with CAD. It is rational to consider assessing deaths, hospital and ICU length of stay, ambulance calls, emergency hospitalizations, angina class and HF stage changes after MI as an algorithm for machine learning and computer analysis of the treatment results in patients with CAD.About the Authors
A. M. NazarovRussian Federation
Orenburg
S. N. Tolpygina
Russian Federation
Moscow
I. P. Bolodurina
Russian Federation
Orenburg
References
1. Vorob'eva II, Vasil'eva EYu, Shpektor AV. Optimal tactics of outpatient management of patients after myocardial infarction. Creative Cardiology. 2010;4(2):40-51. (In Russ.)
2. Steg PG, James SK, Atar D, et al. ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(20):2569-619. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs215.
3. Armstrong PW. WEST Steering Committee. A comparison of pharmacologic therapy with/without timely coronary intervention vs. primary percutaneous intervention early after ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the WEST (Which Early ST-elevation myocardial infarction Therapy) study. Eur Heart J. 2006;27(13):1530-8. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehl088.
4. Moriel M, Matetzky S, Segev A, et al. Aspiration thrombectomy in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (from the acute coronary syndrome israeli survey 2010). Am J Cardiol. 2014;113(5):809-14. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.11.032.
5. Braunwald E, Antman E, Beasely J, et al. ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Executive Summary and Recommendations. Circulation. 2000;102(10):1193-209. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.102.10.1193.
6. IT glossary: big data. Stamford, CT: Gartner; 2012 [cited 2020 Apr 5]. Available from: http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/big-data/.
7. Loewen L, Roudsari A. Evidence for Busines Intelligence in Health Care: A Literature Review In: Randell R, Cornet R, McCowan C, et al. (Eds). Informatics for Health: Connected Citizen-Led Wellness and Population Health. Amsterdam: IOS Press BV, 2017:579-83. ISBN: 0926-9630. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-753-5-579.
8. Weng SF, Reps J, Kai J, et al. Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data? PLOS One. 2017;12(4):e0174944. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0174944.
9. White SE. A review of big data in health care: challenges and opportunities. Open Access Bioinformatics. 2014:6;13-8. doi:10.2147/OAB.S50519.
10. Tocci G, Ferrucci A, Guida P, et al. Use of Electronic Support for Implementing Global Cardiovascular Risk Management. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2010;17(1):37-47. doi:10.2165/11311750-000000000-00000.
11. Gubler EV. Computational methods for the analysis and recognition of pathological processes. L.: Meditsina, 1978. p. 294. (In Russ.)
12. Borovikov VP. STATISTICA. The art of computer data analysis: for professionals. 2-nd ed. SPb.: Piter, 2003. p. 688. (In Russ.)
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Nazarov A.M., Tolpygina S.N., Bolodurina I.P. Analysis and evaluation of healthcare delivery to patients with coronary artery disease using PC-based medical data. Cardiovascular Therapy and Prevention. 2020;19(6):2546. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15829/1728-8800-2020-2546