Understanding the Progression of Congestive Heart Failure of Type 2 Diabetes Patient Using Disease Network and Hospital Claim Data

  • Md Ekramul HossainEmail author
  • Arif Khan
  • Shahadat Uddin
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 882)


Chronic diseases have increasingly become common and caused most of the burden of ill health in most countries. They have large impacts on quality of life, social and economic conditions. These diseases bring several health risks to those patients suffering from more than one chronic disease at one time (also known as comorbidity of chronic disease). Due to this, governments and healthcare service providers are concerned about the burden of comorbidity of chronic diseases. Understanding the progression of comorbidities can provide vital information for the prevention and better management of chronic diseases. The routinely collected hospital claim data contain semantic information about patients’ health in the form of disease codes. Therefore, these data can be used to understand the progression of chronic disease comorbidities. Most studies in this field are focused on understanding the progression of one chronic disease rather than multiple chronic diseases. In this study, we aim to understand the progression of multiple chronic diseases, i.e., comorbidities that occur when patients of one chronic condition progress towards another. Based on the prevalence of chronic diseases within the Australian population, we have particularly focused on the comorbidity progression of congestive heart failure (CHF) for type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients. In this study, we propose a research framework to understand and represent the progression of CHF in patients with T2D using graph theory and social network analysis. We used hospital claim data drawn from the Australian healthcare context. We constructed two baseline disease networks from two cohorts (i.e., patients with both T2D and CHF and patients with only T2D). A final weighted disease network from two cohorts was then generated by giving more weights to the prevalent comorbidities in patients with T2D and CHF compared to the patients with only T2D. The results show that chronic pulmonary disease, cardiac arrhythmias, valvular disease and renal failure occurred frequently during the progression of CHF for T2D patients. In addition, the final disease network shows the highest transition between electrolyte disorders and renal failure. This indicates that these two diseases may be potential risk factors for the progression towards CHF in patients with T2D for this population cohort. Thus, the proposed network representation can help the healthcare provider to understand high-risk diseases and progression pattern between recurrence of T2D and CHF. Also, it can help in the efficient management of healthcare resources. The proposed framework could be useful for stakeholders including governments and health insurers to adopt appropriate preventive health management program for the patients at high risk of developing multiple chronic diseases.


Chronic disease Comorbidity Hospital claim data Graph theory Social network analysis 


  1. 1.
    Australian Institute of Health and Wefare, Chronic Diseases (2017). [www document]. Accessed 03 Aug 2017
  2. 2.
    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 1 in 5 Australians affected by multiple chronic diseases (2015). [www document]. Accessed 03 Aug 2017
  3. 3.
    Capobianco, E.: Comorbidity: a multidimensional approach. Trends Mol. Med. 19(9), 515–521 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ponikowski, P., et al.: 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 18(8), 891–975 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thrainsdottir, I.S., et al.: The association between glucose abnormalities and heart failure in the population-based Reykjavik study. Diabetes Care 28(3), 612–616 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dei Cas, A., et al.: Impact of diabetes on epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes of patients with heart failure. JACC: Heart Fail. 3(2), 136–145 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    MacDonald, M.R., et al.: Impact of diabetes on outcomes in patients with low and preserved ejection fraction heart failure: an analysis of the Candesartan in Heart failure: assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme. Eur. Heart J. 29(11), 1377–1385 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    World Health Organisaion | International Classifications of Diseases (ICD) (2019). Accessed 22 May 2019
  9. 9.
    Hossain, M.E., Uddin, S.: Understanding the comorbidity of multiple chronic diseases using a network approach. In: Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference. ACM (2019)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Charlson, M.E., et al.: A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J. Chronic Dis. 40(5), 373–383 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wong, D.T., Knaus, W.A.: Predicting outcome in critical care: the current status of the APACHE prognostic scoring system. Can. J. Anesth./Journal canadien d’anesthésie 38(3), 374–383 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ewing, D.J., et al.: The value of cardiovascular autonomic function tests: 10 years experience in diabetes. Diabetes Care 8(5), 491–498 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cederholm, J., et al.: Risk prediction of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes: a risk equation from the Swedish National Diabetes Register. Diabetes Care 31(10), 2038–2043 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elixhauser, A., et al.: Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med. Care 36(1), 8–27 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khan, A., Uddin, S., Srinivasan, U.: Comorbidity network for chronic disease: a novel approach to understand type 2 diabetes progression. Int. J. Med. Inform. 115, 1–9 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nichols, G.A., et al.: Congestive heart failure in type 2 diabetes: prevalence, incidence, and risk factors. Diabetes Care 24(9), 1614–1619 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nichols, G.A., et al.: The incidence of congestive heart failure in type 2 diabetes: an update. Diabetes Care 27(8), 1879–1884 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davis, D.A., et al.: Time to CARE: a collaborative engine for practical disease prediction. Data Min. Knowl. Disc. 20(3), 388–415 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gupta, S., et al.: Machine-learning prediction of cancer survival: a retrospective study using electronic administrative records and a cancer registry. BMJ Open 4(3), e004007 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davis, D.A., et al.: Predicting individual disease risk based on medical history. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jensen, F.V.: An Introduction to Bayesian Networks, vol. 210. UCL Press, London (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Faruqui, S.H.A., et al.: Mining patterns of comorbidity evolution in patients with multiple chronic conditions using unsupervised multi-level temporal Bayesian network. PLoS ONE 13(7), e0199768 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Himes, B.E., et al.: Prediction of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in asthma patients using electronic medical records. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 16(3), 371–379 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Anderson, J.G.: Evaluation in health informatics: social network analysis. Comput. Biol. Med. 32(3), 179–193 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    DuGoff, E.H., et al.: A scoping review of patient-sharing network studies using administrative data. Transl. behav. Med. 8(4), 598–625 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Soulakis, N.D., et al.: Visualizing collaborative electronic health record usage for hospitalized patients with heart failure. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 22(2), 299–311 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Uddin, S., et al.: A study of physician collaborations through social network and exponential random graph. BMC Health Serv. Res. 13(1), 234 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Uddin, S., Khan, A., Piraveenan, M.: Administrative claim data to learn about effective healthcare collaboration and coordination through social network. In: 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Merrill, J.A., et al.: Transition networks in a cohort of patients with congestive heart failure. Appl. Clin. Inform. 6(03), 548–564 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    ACCD. Australian Consortium for Classification Development (2019). [www document]. Accessed 12 June 2019
  31. 31.
    Deyo, R.A., Cherkin, D.C., Ciol, M.A.: Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 45(6), 613–619 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Moskowitz, G.B.: Social Cognition: Understanding Self and Others. Guilford Publications (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Quan, H., et al.: Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med. Care 1130–1139 (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Garland, A., et al.: The epidemiology and outcomes of critical illness in Manitoba (2011). Accessed 1 Dec 2011Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tong, B., Stevenson, C.: Comorbidity of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and chronic kidney disease in Australia. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2007)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Huo, X., et al.: Risk of non-fatal cardiovascular diseases in early-onset versus late-onset type 2 diabetes in China: a cross-sectional study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 4(2), 115–124 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhang, J., Gong, J., Barnes, L.: HCNN: heterogeneous convolutional neural networks for comorbid risk prediction with electronic health records. In: 2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Connected Health: Applications, Systems and Engineering Technologies (CHASE). IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liamis, G., et al.: Diabetes mellitus and electrolyte disorders. World J. Clin. Cases: WJCC 2(10), 488 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Barbosa, A., Sztajnbok, J.: Fluid and electrolyte disorders. Jornal de pediatria 75, S223–S233 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gansevoort, R.T., et al.: Chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular risk: epidemiology, mechanisms, and prevention. Lancet 382(9889), 339–352 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bastian, M., Heymann, S., Jacomy, M.: Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Icwsm 8(2009), 361–362 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Md Ekramul Hossain
    • 1
    Email author
  • Arif Khan
    • 1
  • Shahadat Uddin
    • 1
  1. 1.Complex Systems Research Group, Faculty of EngineeringThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations