Margriet Fokkema1, Rob Hurks2, Thomas Curran1, Rodney P Bensley1, Allen D Hamdan1, Mark C Wyers1, Frans L Moll2, Marc L Schermerhorn3. 1. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. 2. Department of Surgery, Division of Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. Electronic address: mscherme@bidymc.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Administrative data are often hampered by coding errors, absent data, and the difficulty of distinguishing pre-existing conditions from perioperative complications. We evaluated whether the introduction of the present on admission (POA) indicator improved outcome analysis of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) using administrative data. METHODS: State inpatient databases from California (2005-2008), New York (2008), and New Jersey (2008) were used to identify patients undergoing CAS and CEA. We first analyzed morbidity data without the POA indicator, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision complication codes (eg, 997.02, iatrogenic cerebrovascular infarction or hemorrhage, postoperative stroke) and diagnosis codes (eg, 433.11, occlusion and stenosis of the carotid artery with cerebral infarction). Then, we applied the POA indicator to both diagnosis and complication codes and calculated the proportion of events that were labeled POA. Symptom status and perioperative stroke rate were compared using these coding approaches. RESULTS: We identified 21,639 patients who underwent CEA and 3688 patients who underwent CAS. Without the POA indicator, the complication code for stroke indicated a postoperative stroke rate of 1.4% for CEA and 2.4% for CAS. After applying the POA indicator, 54% (CEA) and 62% (CAS) of these strokes were labeled POA. These POA strokes were either preoperative or intraoperative events. Proportion of symptomatic patients ranged from 7% to 16% for CEA and from 5% to 22% for CAS. Perioperative stroke rate was the lowest in the POA method (1.1% CEA, 1.8% CAS) compared with two other methods without POA information (1.4% and 9.5% CEA and 2.4% and 16.4% CAS). Kappa indicated a poor (0.2) to fair (0.7) agreement between these approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative data has known limitations for assignment of symptom status and nonfatal perioperative outcomes. Given the uncertain timing of POA events as preoperative vs intraoperative and its apparent underestimation of the perioperative stroke rate, the use of administrative data even with the POA indicator for symptom status and non-fatal outcomes after CEA and CAS is hazardous.
BACKGROUND: Administrative data are often hampered by coding errors, absent data, and the difficulty of distinguishing pre-existing conditions from perioperative complications. We evaluated whether the introduction of the present on admission (POA) indicator improved outcome analysis of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) using administrative data. METHODS: State inpatient databases from California (2005-2008), New York (2008), and New Jersey (2008) were used to identify patients undergoing CAS and CEA. We first analyzed morbidity data without the POA indicator, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision complication codes (eg, 997.02, iatrogenic cerebrovascular infarction or hemorrhage, postoperative stroke) and diagnosis codes (eg, 433.11, occlusion and stenosis of the carotid artery with cerebral infarction). Then, we applied the POA indicator to both diagnosis and complication codes and calculated the proportion of events that were labeled POA. Symptom status and perioperative stroke rate were compared using these coding approaches. RESULTS: We identified 21,639 patients who underwent CEA and 3688 patients who underwent CAS. Without the POA indicator, the complication code for stroke indicated a postoperative stroke rate of 1.4% for CEA and 2.4% for CAS. After applying the POA indicator, 54% (CEA) and 62% (CAS) of these strokes were labeled POA. These POA strokes were either preoperative or intraoperative events. Proportion of symptomatic patients ranged from 7% to 16% for CEA and from 5% to 22% for CAS. Perioperative stroke rate was the lowest in the POA method (1.1% CEA, 1.8% CAS) compared with two other methods without POA information (1.4% and 9.5% CEA and 2.4% and 16.4% CAS). Kappa indicated a poor (0.2) to fair (0.7) agreement between these approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative data has known limitations for assignment of symptom status and nonfatal perioperative outcomes. Given the uncertain timing of POA events as preoperative vs intraoperative and its apparent underestimation of the perioperative stroke rate, the use of administrative data even with the POA indicator for symptom status and non-fatal outcomes after CEA and CAS is hazardous.
Authors: Mohammad H Eslami; James T McPhee; Jessica P Simons; Andres Schanzer; Louis M Messina Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2010-11-18 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Donald E Fry; Michael Pine; Harmon S Jordan; Anne Elixhauser; David C Hoaglin; Barbara Jones; David Warner; Roger Meimban Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Michael Pine; Harmon S Jordan; Anne Elixhauser; Donald E Fry; David C Hoaglin; Barbara Jones; Roger Meimban; David Warner; Junius Gonzales Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2008-09-23 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Kristina A Giles; Allen D Hamdan; Frank B Pomposelli; Mark C Wyers; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2010-09-22 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Leo H Bonati; Joanna Dobson; Ale Algra; Alain Branchereau; Gilles Chatellier; Gustav Fraedrich; Willem P Mali; Hermann Zeumer; Martin M Brown; Jean-Louis Mas; Peter A Ringleb Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Frank L Silver; Ariane Mackey; Wayne M Clark; William Brooks; Carlos H Timaran; David Chiu; Larry B Goldstein; James F Meschia; Robert D Ferguson; Wesley S Moore; George Howard; Thomas G Brott Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Anton N Sidawy; Robert M Zwolak; Rodney A White; Flora S Siami; Marc L Schermerhorn; Gregorio A Sicard Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2008-11-22 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Klaas H J Ultee; Sara L Zettervall; Peter A Soden; Dominique B Buck; Sarah E Deery; Katie E Shean; Hence J M Verhagen; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Andrew W Hoel; Adrienne E Faerber; Kayla O Moore; Niveditta Ramkumar; Benjamin S Brooke; Salvatore T Scali; Art Sedrakyan; Philip P Goodney Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2017-02-17 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Klaas H J Ultee; Peter A Soden; Victor Chien; Rodney P Bensley; Sara L Zettervall; Hence J M Verhagen; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Sara L Zettervall; Klaas H J Ultee; Peter A Soden; Sarah E Deery; Katie E Shean; Alexander B Pothof; Mark Wyers; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Stephen van Gaal; Arshia Alimohammadi; Amy Y X Yu; Mohammad Ehsanul Karim; Wei Zhang; Jason M Sutherland Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 2.655