Comparison of computer-assigned Minnesota codes with the visual standard method for new coronary heart disease events

Jan A. Kors, Richard S. Crow, Peter J. Hannan, Pentti M. Rautaharju, Aaron R. Folsom

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

42 Scopus citations

Abstract

The Minnesota Code is the most widely used electrocardiogram (ECG) classification system for epidemiologic studies and has been incorporated into several computer algorithms. The authors compared the Modular ECG Analysis System (MC-MEANS) and NOVACODE computer ECG findings with the Visual coding standard for agreement and prognostic associations with coronary heart disease (CHD) events occurring during follow-up from 1987 to 1995 in 2,116 individuals participating in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. The exact agreement between Visual and computer findings was greater than 90% for all Minnesota Code categories except Q-code, which was 77% for MC-MEANS and 81% for NOVACODE. Approximately 60% of all Q-codes were assigned by computer methods only. Among the 2,116 participants, there were 246 (11.6%) new coronary events. Unadjusted relative risks for codes assigned by the three methods were similar. When computer methods disagreed on code severity, the CHD occurrence rates for MC-MEANS-detected severer code versus NOVACODE-detected severer code were 21% and 7%, respectively. This study provides clear evidence that computers assign more and severer Minnesota Codes with similar prognostic importance as does the Visual method; it also alerts researchers to potential problems in pooling Minnesota Code data read by different methods.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)790-797
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican journal of epidemiology
Volume151
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 15 2000

Keywords

  • Computing methodologies
  • Coronary disease
  • Electrocardiography
  • Prognosis

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of computer-assigned Minnesota codes with the visual standard method for new coronary heart disease events'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this