Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of hsresearchLink to Publisher's site
Health Serv Res. 2000 March; 34(7): 1469–1489.
PMCID: PMC1975668

Risk-adjusting acute myocardial infarction mortality: are APR-DRGs the right tool?


OBJECTIVE: To determine if a widely used proprietary risk-adjustment system, APR-DRGs, misadjusts for severity of illness and misclassifies provider performance. DATA SOURCES: (1) Discharge abstracts for 116,174 noninstitutionalized adults with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) admitted to nonfederal California hospitals in 1991-1993; (2) inpatient medical records for a stratified probability sample of 974 patients with AMIs admitted to 30 California hospitals between July 31, 1990 and May 31, 1991. STUDY DESIGN: Using the 1991-1993 data set, we evaluated the predictive performance of APR-DRGs Version 12. Using the 1990/1991 validation sample, we assessed the effect of assigning APR-DRGs based on different sources of ICD-9-CM data. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Trained, blinded coders reabstracted all ICD-9-CM diagnoses and procedures, and established the timing of each diagnosis. APR-DRG Risk of Mortality and Severity of Illness classes were assigned based on (1) all hospital-reported diagnoses, (2) all reabstracted diagnoses, and (3) reabstracted diagnoses present at admission. The outcome variables were 30-day mortality in the 1991-1993 data set and 30-day inpatient mortality in the 1990/1991 validation sample. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The APR-DRG Risk of Mortality class was a strong predictor of death (c = .831-.847), but was further enhanced by adding age and sex. Reabstracting diagnoses improved the apparent performance of APR-DRGs (c = .93 versus c = .87), while using only the diagnoses present at admission decreased apparent performance (c = .74). Reabstracting diagnoses had less effect on hospitals' expected mortality rates (r = .83-.85) than using diagnoses present at admission instead of all reabstracted diagnoses (r = .72-.77). There was fair agreement in classifying hospital performance based on these three sets of diagnostic data (K = 0.35-0.38). CONCUSIONS: The APR-DRG Risk of Mortality system is a powerful risk-adjustment tool, largely because it includes all relevant diagnoses, regardless of timing. Although some late diagnoses may not be preventable, APR-DRGs appear suitable only if one assumes that none is preventable.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (2.1M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

Images in this article

Click on the image to see a larger version.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Alemi F, Rice J, Hankins R. Predicting in-hospital survival of myocardial infarction. A comparative study of various severity measures. Med Care. 1990 Sep;28(9):762–775. [PubMed]
  • Brailer DJ, Kroch E, Pauly MV, Huang J. Comorbidity-adjusted complication risk: a new outcome quality measure. Med Care. 1996 May;34(5):490–505. [PubMed]
  • Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982 Apr;143(1):29–36. [PubMed]
  • Hosmer DW, Hosmer T, Le Cessie S, Lemeshow S. A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model. Stat Med. 1997 May 15;16(9):965–980. [PubMed]
  • Iezzoni LI, Daley J, Heeren T, Foley SM, Fisher ES, Duncan C, Hughes JS, Coffman GA. Identifying complications of care using administrative data. Med Care. 1994 Jul;32(7):700–715. [PubMed]
  • Iezzoni LI, Shwartz M, Ash AS, Hughes JS, Daley J, Mackiernan YD. Using severity-adjusted stroke mortality rates to judge hospitals. Int J Qual Health Care. 1995 Jun;7(2):81–94. [PubMed]
  • Iezzoni LI, Ash AS, Shwartz M, Daley J, Hughes JS, Mackiernan YD. Judging hospitals by severity-adjusted mortality rates: the influence of the severity-adjustment method. Am J Public Health. 1996 Oct;86(10):1379–1387. [PubMed]
  • Iezzoni LI, Shwartz M, Ash AS, Hughes JS, Daley J, Mackiernan YD. Severity measurement methods and judging hospital death rates for pneumonia. Med Care. 1996 Jan;34(1):11–28. [PubMed]
  • Iezzoni LI. The risks of risk adjustment. JAMA. 1997 Nov 19;278(19):1600–1607. [PubMed]
  • Iezzoni LI, Ash AS, Shwartz M, Landon BE, Mackiernan YD. Predicting in-hospital deaths from coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Do different severity measures give different predictions? Med Care. 1998 Jan;36(1):28–39. [PubMed]
  • Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159–174. [PubMed]
  • Pine M, Norusis M, Jones B, Rosenthal GE. Predictions of hospital mortality rates: a comparison of data sources. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Mar 1;126(5):347–354. [PubMed]
  • Selker HP, Griffith JL, D'Agostino RB. A time-insensitive predictive instrument for acute myocardial infarction mortality: a multicenter study. Med Care. 1991 Dec;29(12):1196–1211. [PubMed]
  • Silber JH, Williams SV, Krakauer H, Schwartz JS. Hospital and patient characteristics associated with death after surgery. A study of adverse occurrence and failure to rescue. Med Care. 1992 Jul;30(7):615–629. [PubMed]
  • Soeken KL, Prescott PA. Issues in the use of kappa to estimate reliability. Med Care. 1986 Aug;24(8):733–741. [PubMed]

Articles from Health Services Research are provided here courtesy of Health Research & Educational Trust