The value of linking hospital discharge and mortality data for comparative effectiveness research
Abstract
Background: Linkage of US state hospital discharge records to state death certificate records offers the possibility of tracking long-term mortality outcomes across large, diverse patient populations, which may be useful for comparative effective analyses. Aim: To demonstrate the value of linking state community hospital discharge data to vital statistics death files for research by conducting a comparative effectiveness analysis. Methods: Linked Patient Discharge Data and Vital Statistics Death Files from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development were used to compare survival rates for patients with an elective repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm who received open aneurysm repair (OAR) versus endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The sample consisted of 13,652 hospitalized patients who underwent an OAR or EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm between 1 July 2000 and 31 January 2006. Patients were matched using propensity scores (8966 patients in the matched sample). In-hospital, 30-day, 1-year and 5-year mortality rates were compared between the OAR and EVAR populations, before and after propensity score matching. Results: We found a few data anomalies (92 out of 13,652), primarily in patients’ sex and date of death. The analysis revealed that in the matched cohort, in-hospital and 30-day postdischarge mortality rates were significantly lower following EVAR than OAR; however, consistent with previous clinical trials, differences in the 1- and 5-year rates were not statistically significant. Conclusion: The study demonstrates that linked US state discharge and mortality data can be a valuable resource for comparative effectiveness analyses. In particular, this approach may be useful when generally available data sets such as Medicare claims data limit the generalizability of findings. Policy-makers and others should consider greater investments in these data.
References
- 1 Roundtable on evidence-based medicine. summary. In: The Learning Healthcare System: Workshop Summary (IOM Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine). Olsen L, Aisner D, McGinnis JM (Eds). The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 1–36 (2007).Google Scholar
- 2 Siri MJ, Cork DL. Vital Statistics: Summary of a Workshop. Committee on: National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council of the National Academies. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA (2009).Google Scholar
- 3 Bradley CJ, Penberthy L, Devers KJ, Holden DJ. Health services research and data linkages: issues, methods, and directions for the future. Health Serv. Res.45(5 Pt 2),1468–1488 (2010).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 4 Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, Healthcare Information Division. Linked Patient Discharge Data and Vital Statistics Death Statistical Master File 2000–2007. Healthcare Information Division of the State of California, CA, USA.Google Scholar
- 5 Zingmond DS, Ye Z, Ettner SL, Liu H. Linking hospital discharge and death records – accuracy and sources of bias. J. Clin. Epidemiol.57(1),21–29 (2004).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 6 Meyer AM, Carpenter WR, Abernethy AP, Stürmer T, Kosorok MR. Data for cancer comparative effectiveness research: past, present, and future potential. Cancer118(21),5186–5197 (2012).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 7 Hirsch AT, Haskal ZJ, Hertzer NR et al. ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic): a collaborative report from the American Associations for Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, Society of Interventional Radiology, and the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to develop guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease) – summary of recommendations. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol.17(9),1383–1397 (2006).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 8 Greenhalgh RM, Brown LC, Kwong GP et al. Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trials 1), 30-day operative mortality results: randomized controlled trial. Lancet364,843–848 (2004).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
- 9 Prinssen M, Buskens E, de Jong SE et al. DREAM trial participants. Cost–effectiveness of conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: results of a randomized trial. J. Vasc. Surg.46(5),883–890 (2007).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 10 EVAR trial participants. Endovascular aneurysm repair versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1): randomised controlled trial. Lancet365(9478),2179–2186 (2005).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 11 Schwarze ML, Shen Y, Hemmerich J et al. Age-related trends in utilization and outcome of open and endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in the United States, 2001–2006. J. Vasc. Surg.50(4),722–729 (2009).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 12 American Hospital Association Annual Survey. Health Forum, LLC, American Hospital Association, Chicago, IL, USA (2012).Google Scholar
- 13 Lederle FA, Freischlag JA, Kyriakides TC et al. Outcomes following endovascular vs. open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: a randomized trial. JAMA302(14),1535–1542 (2009).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
- 14 Blankensteijn JD, de Jong SE, Prinssen M et al. Two-year outcomes after conventional or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. N. Engl. J. Med.352,2398–2405 (2005).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
- 15 Schermerhorn ML, O’Malley AJ, Jhaveri A et al. Endovascular vs. open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the Medicare population. N. Engl. J. Med.358(5),464–474 (2008).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
- 16 Jackson RS, Chang DC, Freischlag JA. Comparison of long-term survival after open vs endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysm among Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA307(15),1621–1628 (2012).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar
- 17 Zach AP, Romano PS, Luft HS. Report on Heart Attack 1991–1993, Volume 1: User’s Guide. California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, Sacramento, CA, USA (1997).Google Scholar
- 18 Healthcare Quality and Analysis Division. Report on Heart Attack Outcomes in California 1996–1998, Volume 2: Technical Guide. California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, Sacramento, CA, USA (2002).Google Scholar
- 101 US Department of Health & Human Services. Welcome to HCUPnet. http://hcupnet.ahrq.govGoogle Scholar
- 102 HCUP Comorbidity Software. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, USA (2012). www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/comorbidity/comorbidity.jspGoogle Scholar
- 103 Sack K. Researchers wring hands as US clamps down on death record access. www.nytimes.com/2012/10/09/us/social-security-death-record-limits-hinder-researchers.html?_r=0Google Scholar
- 104 MacDonald T, Mackenzie I, Wei L. Novel ways to get good trial data: the UK experience. Medical Research Institute of Dundee. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. www.iom.edu/Home/Global/Perspectives/2012/GoodTrialDataUK.aspxCrossref, Google Scholar
