Comparison of cardiac surgery mortality reports using administrative and clinical data sources: a prospective cohort study.

backgroundOutcomes for coronary artery bypass surgery are of broadening interest, but the impact of data type on quality reporting has not been fully examined. We compared the performance of administrative and clinical data-based risk adjustment models at a tertiary-quaternary care hospital.

methodsWe used a prospective study design to test two risk adjustment models, one from administrative (Canadian Institute for Health Information [CIHI] Cardiac Care Quality Indicator) and one from clinical data (Society of Thoracic Surgeons), on cardiac surgical procedures performed between 2013 and 2016 (

resultsObserved mortality was 1.96%, which was the same as that predicted by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons model (1.96%), but significantly higher than that predicted by the CIHI model (1.03%). Despite both models having similar C statistics (0.756 CIHI; 0.758 Society of Thoracic Surgeons), the CIHI model showed significant underestimation of mortality among patients at higher risk. There was significant miscalibration of risk associated with 7 covariates: New York Heart Association class IV, congestive heart failure, ejection fraction less than 20%, atrial fibrillation, acute coronary insufficiency, cardiac compromise (shock, myocardial infarction < 24 h, intra-aortic balloon pump, cardiac resuscitation or preprocedure circulatory support) and creatinine concentration of 100 mg/dL or more. Together, these factors accounted for 84% of the difference in predicted mortality between the administrative and clinical models.

interpretationRisk prediction using administrative data underestimated risk of death, potentially inflating observed-to-predicted mortality ratios at hospitals with patients who are more ill. Caution is warranted when hospital reports of cardiac surgery outcomes are based on administrative data alone.