PURPOSE: To validate an algorithm based upon International Classification of Diseases, 9(th) revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) documented within the Mini-Sentinel Distributed Database (MSDD). METHODS: Using an ICD-9-CM-based algorithm (hospitalized patients with 410.x0 or 410.x1 in primary position), we identified a random sample of potential cases of AMI in 2009 from four Data Partners participating in the Mini-Sentinel Program. Cardiologist reviewers used information abstracted from hospital records to assess the likelihood of an AMI diagnosis based on criteria from the Joint European Society of Cardiology and American College of Cardiology Global Task Force. Positive predictive values (PPVs) of the ICD-9-based algorithm were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 153 potential cases of AMI identified, hospital records for 143 (93%) were retrieved and abstracted. Overall, the PPV was 86.0% (95% confidence interval; 79.2%, 91.2%). PPVs ranged from 76.3% to 94.3% across the four Data Partners. CONCLUSIONS: The overall PPV of potential AMI cases, as identified using an ICD-9-CM-based algorithm, may be acceptable for safety surveillance; however, PPVs do vary across Data Partners. This validation effort provides a contemporary estimate of the reliability of this algorithm for use in future surveillance efforts conducted using the Food and Drug Administration's MSDD. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PURPOSE: To describe the acute myocardial infarction (AMI) validation project, a test case for health outcome validation within the US Food and Drug Administration-funded Mini-Sentinel pilot program. METHODS: The project consisted of four parts: (i) case identification-developing an algorithm based on the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, to identify hospitalized AMI patients within the Mini-Sentinel Distributed Database; (ii) chart retrieval-establishing procedures that ensured patient privacy (collection and transfer of minimum necessary amount of information, and redaction of direct identifiers to validate potential cases of AMI); (iii) abstraction and adjudication-trained nurse abstractors gathered key data using a standardized form with cardiologist adjudication; and (iv) calculation of the positive predictive value of the constructed algorithm. RESULTS: Key decision points included (i) breadth of the AMI algorithm, (ii) centralized versus distributed abstraction, and (iii) approaches to maintaining patient privacy and to obtaining charts for public health purposes. We used an algorithm limited to International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes 410.x0-410.x1. Centralized data abstraction was performed because of the modest number of charts requested ( CONCLUSIONS: We have established a process to validate AMI within Mini-Sentinel, which may be used for other health outcomes. Challenges include the following: (i) ensuring that only minimum necessary data are transmitted by Data Partners for centralized chart review, (ii) establishing procedures to maintain data privacy while still allowing for timely access to medical charts, and (iii) securing access to charts for public health uses that do not require approval from an institutional review board while maintaining patient privacy.