BACKGROUND: US estimates of the Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) burden have utilized International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes. Whether ICD-9-CM code rank order affects CDI prevalence estimates is important because the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) have varying limits on the number of ICD-9-CM codes collected. METHODS: ICD-9-CM codes for CDI (008.45), C. difficile toxin assay results, and dates of admission and discharge were collected from electronic hospital databases for adult patients admitted to 4 hospitals in the United States from July 2000 through June 2006. CDI prevalence per 1000 discharges was calculated and compared for NHDS and NIS limits and toxin assay results from the same hospitals. CDI prevalence estimates were compared using the χ(2) test, and the test of equality was used to compare slopes. RESULTS: CDI prevalence measured by NIS criteria was significantly higher than that measured using NHDS criteria (10.7 cases per 1000 discharges versus 9.4 cases per 1000 discharges; P<.001) in the 4 hospitals. CDI prevalence measured by toxin assay results was 9.4 cases per 1000 discharges (P=.57 versus NHDS). However, the CDI prevalence increased more rapidly over time when measured according to the NHDS criteria than when measured according to toxin assay results (β=1.09 versus 0.84; P=.008). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the NHDS definition, the NIS definition captured 12% more CDI cases and reported significantly higher CDI rates. Rates calculated using toxin assay results were not different from rates calculated using NHDS criteria, but CDI prevalence appeared to increase more rapidly when measured by NHDS criteria than when measured by toxin assay results.
BACKGROUND: US estimates of the Clostridium difficileinfection (CDI) burden have utilized International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes. Whether ICD-9-CM code rank order affects CDI prevalence estimates is important because the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) have varying limits on the number of ICD-9-CM codes collected. METHODS: ICD-9-CM codes for CDI (008.45), C. difficile toxin assay results, and dates of admission and discharge were collected from electronic hospital databases for adult patients admitted to 4 hospitals in the United States from July 2000 through June 2006. CDI prevalence per 1000 discharges was calculated and compared for NHDS and NIS limits and toxin assay results from the same hospitals. CDI prevalence estimates were compared using the χ(2) test, and the test of equality was used to compare slopes. RESULTS: CDI prevalence measured by NIS criteria was significantly higher than that measured using NHDS criteria (10.7 cases per 1000 discharges versus 9.4 cases per 1000 discharges; P<.001) in the 4 hospitals. CDI prevalence measured by toxin assay results was 9.4 cases per 1000 discharges (P=.57 versus NHDS). However, the CDI prevalence increased more rapidly over time when measured according to the NHDS criteria than when measured according to toxin assay results (β=1.09 versus 0.84; P=.008). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the NHDS definition, the NIS definition captured 12% more CDI cases and reported significantly higher CDI rates. Rates calculated using toxin assay results were not different from rates calculated using NHDS criteria, but CDI prevalence appeared to increase more rapidly when measured by NHDS criteria than when measured by toxin assay results.
Authors: Vivian G Loo; Louise Poirier; Mark A Miller; Matthew Oughton; Michael D Libman; Sophie Michaud; Anne-Marie Bourgault; Tuyen Nguyen; Charles Frenette; Mirabelle Kelly; Anne Vibien; Paul Brassard; Susan Fenn; Ken Dewar; Thomas J Hudson; Ruth Horn; Pierre René; Yury Monczak; André Dascal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: L Clifford McDonald; George E Killgore; Angela Thompson; Robert C Owens; Sophia V Kazakova; Susan P Sambol; Stuart Johnson; Dale N Gerding Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Carlene A Muto; Marian Pokrywka; Kathleen Shutt; Aaron B Mendelsohn; Kathy Nouri; Kathy Posey; Terri Roberts; Karen Croyle; Sharon Krystofiak; Sujata Patel-Brown; A William Pasculle; David L Paterson; Melissa Saul; Lee H Harrison Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Hisham Hussan; Emmanuel Ugbarugba; Michael T Bailey; Kyle Porter; Bradley Needleman; Sabrena Noria; Benjamin O'Donnell; Steven K Clinton Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Stijn Bekkers; Arjan G J Bot; Dennis Makarawung; Valentin Neuhaus; David Ring Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Kevin Antoine Brown; Bradley Langford; Kevin L Schwartz; Christina Diong; Gary Garber; Nick Daneman Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Seth R Shaffer; Zoann Nugent; Andrew Walkty; B Nancy Yu; Lisa M Lix; Laura E Targownik; Charles N Bernstein; Harminder Singh Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2020-11-16
Authors: Mira T Keddis; Sahil Khanna; Amit Noheria; Larry M Baddour; Darrell S Pardi; Qi Qian Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Z Kassam; C Cribb Fabersunne; M B Smith; E J Alm; G G Kaplan; G C Nguyen; A N Ananthakrishnan Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2016-02-05 Impact factor: 8.171