BACKGROUND: Severe sepsis is a common and costly problem. Although consistently defined clinically by consensus conference since 1991, there have been several different implementations of the severe sepsis definition using ICD-9-CM codes for research. We conducted a single center, patient-level validation of 1 common implementation of the severe sepsis definition, the so-called "Angus" implementation. METHODS: Administrative claims for all hospitalizations for patients initially admitted to general medical services from an academic medical center in 2009-2010 were reviewed. On the basis of ICD-9-CM codes, hospitalizations were sampled for review by 3 internal medicine-trained hospitalists. Chart reviews were conducted with a structured instrument, and the gold standard was the hospitalists' summary clinical judgment on whether the patient had severe sepsis. RESULTS: Three thousand one hundred forty-six (13.5%) hospitalizations met ICD-9-CM criteria for severe sepsis by the Angus implementation (Angus-positive) and 20,142 (86.5%) were Angus-negative. Chart reviews were performed for 92 randomly selected Angus-positive and 19 randomly-selected Angus-negative hospitalizations. Reviewers had a κ of 0.70. The Angus implementation's positive predictive value was 70.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 51.2%, 90.5%]. The negative predictive value was 91.5% (95% CI: 79.0%, 100%). The sensitivity was 50.4% (95% CI: 14.8%, 85.7%). Specificity was 96.3% (95% CI: 92.4%, 100%). Two alternative ICD-9-CM implementations had high positive predictive values but sensitivities of <20%. CONCLUSIONS: The Angus implementation of the international consensus conference definition of severe sepsis offers a reasonable but imperfect approach to identifying patients with severe sepsis when compared with a gold standard of structured review of the medical chart by trained hospitalists.
BACKGROUND:Severe sepsis is a common and costly problem. Although consistently defined clinically by consensus conference since 1991, there have been several different implementations of the severe sepsis definition using ICD-9-CM codes for research. We conducted a single center, patient-level validation of 1 common implementation of the severe sepsis definition, the so-called "Angus" implementation. METHODS: Administrative claims for all hospitalizations for patients initially admitted to general medical services from an academic medical center in 2009-2010 were reviewed. On the basis of ICD-9-CM codes, hospitalizations were sampled for review by 3 internal medicine-trained hospitalists. Chart reviews were conducted with a structured instrument, and the gold standard was the hospitalists' summary clinical judgment on whether the patient had severe sepsis. RESULTS: Three thousand one hundred forty-six (13.5%) hospitalizations met ICD-9-CM criteria for severe sepsis by the Angus implementation (Angus-positive) and 20,142 (86.5%) were Angus-negative. Chart reviews were performed for 92 randomly selected Angus-positive and 19 randomly-selected Angus-negative hospitalizations. Reviewers had a κ of 0.70. The Angus implementation's positive predictive value was 70.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 51.2%, 90.5%]. The negative predictive value was 91.5% (95% CI: 79.0%, 100%). The sensitivity was 50.4% (95% CI: 14.8%, 85.7%). Specificity was 96.3% (95% CI: 92.4%, 100%). Two alternative ICD-9-CM implementations had high positive predictive values but sensitivities of <20%. CONCLUSIONS: The Angus implementation of the international consensus conference definition of severe sepsis offers a reasonable but imperfect approach to identifying patients with severe sepsis when compared with a gold standard of structured review of the medical chart by trained hospitalists.
Authors: Eric B Milbrandt; Basil Eldadah; Susan Nayfield; Evan Hadley; Derek C Angus Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2010-06-17 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Florian B Mayr; Sachin Yende; Walter T Linde-Zwirble; Octavia M Peck-Palmer; Amber E Barnato; Lisa A Weissfeld; Derek C Angus Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-06-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Robert W Yeh; Stephen Sidney; Malini Chandra; Michael Sorel; Joseph V Selby; Alan S Go Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bradford D Winters; Michael Eberlein; Janice Leung; Dale M Needham; Peter J Pronovost; Jonathan E Sevransky Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Helen Lee; Christopher James Doig; William A Ghali; Cam Donaldson; David Johnson; Braden Manns Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Joshua Rolnick; N Lance Downing; John Shepard; Weihan Chu; Julia Tam; Alexander Wessels; Ron Li; Brian Dietrich; Michael Rudy; Leon Castaneda; Lisa Shieh Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: John P Donnelly; Monika M Safford; Nathan I Shapiro; John W Baddley; Henry E Wang Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2017-03-04 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Kristin H Gigli; Billie S Davis; Jonathan G Yabes; Chung-Chou H Chang; Derek C Angus; Tina Batra Hershey; Jennifer R Marin; Grant R Martsolf; Jeremy M Kahn Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Elizabeth K Stevenson; Amanda R Rubenstein; Gregory T Radin; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Allan J Walkey Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Lena E Winestone; Kelly D Getz; Tamara P Miller; Yimei Li; Yuan-Shung Huang; Alix E Seif; Brian T Fisher; Richard Aplenc Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Chanu Rhee; Raymund Dantes; Lauren Epstein; David J Murphy; Christopher W Seymour; Theodore J Iwashyna; Sameer S Kadri; Derek C Angus; Robert L Danner; Anthony E Fiore; John A Jernigan; Greg S Martin; Edward Septimus; David K Warren; Anita Karcz; Christina Chan; John T Menchaca; Rui Wang; Susan Gruber; Michael Klompas Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 56.272