Validity of International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 Diagnosis Codes for Identification of Acute Heart Failure Hospitalization and Heart Failure with Reduced Versus Preserved Ejection Fraction in a National Medicare Sample.

Benjamin A Bates, Ehimare Akhabue, Meghan M Nahass, Abhigyan Mukherjee, Emily Hiltner, Joanna Rock, Brandon Wilton, Garima Mittal, Aayush Visaria, Melanie Rua, Poonam Gandhi, Chintan V Dave, Soko Setoguchi
{"title":"Validity of International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 Diagnosis Codes for Identification of Acute Heart Failure Hospitalization and Heart Failure with Reduced Versus Preserved Ejection Fraction in a National Medicare Sample.","authors":"Benjamin A Bates,&nbsp;Ehimare Akhabue,&nbsp;Meghan M Nahass,&nbsp;Abhigyan Mukherjee,&nbsp;Emily Hiltner,&nbsp;Joanna Rock,&nbsp;Brandon Wilton,&nbsp;Garima Mittal,&nbsp;Aayush Visaria,&nbsp;Melanie Rua,&nbsp;Poonam Gandhi,&nbsp;Chintan V Dave,&nbsp;Soko Setoguchi","doi":"10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.122.009078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of hospitalization in older adults. Medicare data have been used to assess HF outcomes. However, the validity of ICD-10 diagnosis codes (used since 2015) to identify acute HF hospitalization or distinguish reduced (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is unknown in Medicare data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using Medicare data (2015-2017), we randomly sampled 200 HF hospitalizations with ICD-10 diagnosis codes for HF in the first/second claim position in a 1:1:2 ratio for systolic HF (I50.2), diastolic HF (I50.3), and other HF (I50.X). The primary gold standards included recorded HF diagnosis by a treating physician for HF hospitalization, ejection fraction (EF)≤50 for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and EF>50 for HFpEF. If the quantitative EF was not present, then qualitative descriptions of EF were used for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction/HFpEF gold standards. Multiple secondary gold standards were also tested. Gold standard data were extracted from medical records using standardized forms and adjudicated by cardiology fellows/staff. We calculated positive predictive values with 95% CIs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 200-chart validation sample included 50 systolic, 50 diastolic, 47 combined dysfunction, and 53 unspecified HF patients. The positive predictive values of acute HF hospitalization was 98% [95% CI, 95-100] for first-position ICD-10 HF diagnosis and 66% [95% CI, 58-74] for first/second-position diagnosis. Quantitative EF was available for ≥80% of patients with systolic, diastolic, or combined dysfunction ICD-10 codes. The positive predictive value of systolic HF codes was 90% [95% CI, 82-98] for EFs≤50% and 72% [95% CI, 60-85] for EFs≤40%. The positive predictive value was 92% [95% CI, 85-100] for HFpEF for EFs>50%. The ICD-10 codes for combined or unspecified HF poorly predicted heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or HFpEF.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ICD-10 principal diagnosis identified acute HF hospitalization with a high positive predictive value. Systolic and diastolic ICD-10 diagnoses reliably identified heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and HFpEF when EF 50% was used as the cutoff.</p>","PeriodicalId":10301,"journal":{"name":"Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes","volume":"16 2","pages":"e009078"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.122.009078","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of hospitalization in older adults. Medicare data have been used to assess HF outcomes. However, the validity of ICD-10 diagnosis codes (used since 2015) to identify acute HF hospitalization or distinguish reduced (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is unknown in Medicare data.

Methods: Using Medicare data (2015-2017), we randomly sampled 200 HF hospitalizations with ICD-10 diagnosis codes for HF in the first/second claim position in a 1:1:2 ratio for systolic HF (I50.2), diastolic HF (I50.3), and other HF (I50.X). The primary gold standards included recorded HF diagnosis by a treating physician for HF hospitalization, ejection fraction (EF)≤50 for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and EF>50 for HFpEF. If the quantitative EF was not present, then qualitative descriptions of EF were used for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction/HFpEF gold standards. Multiple secondary gold standards were also tested. Gold standard data were extracted from medical records using standardized forms and adjudicated by cardiology fellows/staff. We calculated positive predictive values with 95% CIs.

Results: The 200-chart validation sample included 50 systolic, 50 diastolic, 47 combined dysfunction, and 53 unspecified HF patients. The positive predictive values of acute HF hospitalization was 98% [95% CI, 95-100] for first-position ICD-10 HF diagnosis and 66% [95% CI, 58-74] for first/second-position diagnosis. Quantitative EF was available for ≥80% of patients with systolic, diastolic, or combined dysfunction ICD-10 codes. The positive predictive value of systolic HF codes was 90% [95% CI, 82-98] for EFs≤50% and 72% [95% CI, 60-85] for EFs≤40%. The positive predictive value was 92% [95% CI, 85-100] for HFpEF for EFs>50%. The ICD-10 codes for combined or unspecified HF poorly predicted heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or HFpEF.

Conclusions: ICD-10 principal diagnosis identified acute HF hospitalization with a high positive predictive value. Systolic and diastolic ICD-10 diagnoses reliably identified heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and HFpEF when EF 50% was used as the cutoff.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
国际疾病分类(ICD)-10诊断代码在国家医疗保险样本中识别急性心力衰竭住院和射血分数降低与保留的心力衰竭的有效性
背景:心力衰竭(HF)是老年人住院的主要原因。医疗保险数据已用于评估心衰结局。然而,ICD-10诊断代码(自2015年开始使用)用于识别急性HF住院或区分减少(心力衰竭伴射血分数降低)与保留射血分数(HFpEF)的有效性在Medicare数据中尚不清楚。方法:使用2015-2017年的Medicare数据,我们随机抽取200例HF住院患者,这些患者的ICD-10诊断代码在第一/第二索赔位置,收缩期HF (I50.2)、舒张期HF (I50.3)和其他HF (I50.X)的比例为1:1:2。主要金标准包括HF住院时由主治医师记录的HF诊断,心力衰竭伴射血分数降低时射血分数(EF)≤50,HFpEF时射血分数>50。如果定量EF不存在,则定性描述EF用于射血分数降低/HFpEF金标准的心力衰竭。多个次级黄金标准也进行了测试。金标准数据采用标准化表格从医疗记录中提取,并由心脏病学研究员/工作人员裁决。我们计算出95% ci的阳性预测值。结果:200张图表验证样本包括50例收缩期、50例舒张期、47例合并功能障碍和53例未指明的HF患者。ICD-10心衰第一位置诊断的急性心衰住院阳性预测值为98% [95% CI, 95-100],第一/第二位置诊断的阳性预测值为66% [95% CI, 58-74]。定量EF可用于≥80%有收缩期、舒张期或合并功能障碍的ICD-10编码患者。对于EFs≤50%,收缩期HF编码阳性预测值为90% [95% CI, 82-98],对于EFs≤40%,阳性预测值为72% [95% CI, 60-85]。对于EFs>50%的HFpEF,阳性预测值为92% [95% CI, 85-100]。ICD-10对合并或未明确的心力衰竭的编码对射血分数降低或HFpEF心衰的预测较差。结论:ICD-10主要诊断对急性心衰住院具有较高的阳性预测价值。收缩期和舒张期ICD-10诊断可靠地确定心力衰竭与射血分数和HFpEF降低,当EF 50%作为截止。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
2.90%
发文量
357
期刊介绍: Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, an American Heart Association journal, publishes articles related to improving cardiovascular health and health care. Content includes original research, reviews, and case studies relevant to clinical decision-making and healthcare policy. The online-only journal is dedicated to furthering the mission of promoting safe, effective, efficient, equitable, timely, and patient-centered care. Through its articles and contributions, the journal equips you with the knowledge you need to improve clinical care and population health, and allows you to engage in scholarly activities of consequence to the health of the public. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes considers the following types of articles: Original Research Articles, Data Reports, Methods Papers, Cardiovascular Perspectives, Care Innovations, Novel Statistical Methods, Policy Briefs, Data Visualizations, and Caregiver or Patient Viewpoints.
期刊最新文献
Association Between Life's Essential 8 Cardiovascular Health Metrics With Cardiovascular Events in the Cardiovascular Disease Lifetime Risk Pooling Project. Clinician Decision Support Tools: Advances in Lipid-Lowering Treatment Intensification. Beyond the Methods: Economic Stability and Cardiovascular Health. Mapping Geographic Proximity to Cardiologists Across the United States. Determinants and Outcomes Associated With Skilled Nursing Facility Use After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Statewide Experience.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1