[Hospitalisations for acute myocardial infarction--comparing data from three different sources]

Area of Science:

• Cardiology
• Health Services Research
• Biostatistics

Background:

• Hospitalisation data for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are crucial for understanding disease burden and outcomes.
• Existing data sources, including national discharge statistics, sickness fund claims, and disease registries, have limitations in scope, detail, and representativeness.
• Comparing these sources is essential to identify optimal data collection methods for AMI surveillance.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the quality and consistency of hospitalisation data for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) from three distinct sources in Germany.
• To evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of national hospital discharge statistics, sickness fund claims data, and registry data for AMI research.
• To inform future strategies for improving the accuracy and utility of AMI data collection.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of hospital discharge statistics (Germany-wide, limited characteristics).
• Analysis of longitudinal claims data from sickness funds (more characteristics, single funds).
• Comparison with data from a specific disease registry (Augsburg, non-representative).

Main Results:

• Sickness fund data showed good consistency with national statistics for most AMI outcomes.
• Discrepancies were observed when comparing sickness fund data with registry data, particularly for case fatality rates and technology utilisation.
• No single data source was found to be ideal for comprehensive AMI analysis.

Conclusions:

• Methodological and regional variations contribute to observed differences in AMI data across sources.
• Individual-level data comparison is recommended for deeper insights into AMI incidence and treatment.
• The prospective merging of data from all statutory sickness funds holds promise for more valid AMI research and public health surveillance.