Patrick J Coppler1, Jon C Rittenberger1, David J Wallace2, Clifton W Callaway1, Jonathan Elmer3. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh PA, United States. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh PA, United States; Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh PA, United States. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh PA, United States; Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh PA, United States. Electronic address: elmerjp@upmc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: International Classification of Diseases 9th Edition's Clinical Modification (ICD-9CM) codes are frequently used in health services research. We tested the operating characteristics of ICD-9CM codes for identifying out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) subjects. METHODS: We used ICD-9CM codes to generate an "administrative cohort" of subjects treated after possible OHCA at one of six emergency departments (EDs) between January 2010 and April 2014. We performed a structured chart review to determine proportion of this administrative cohort with actual OHCA (true positive rate for the ICD-9CM-based search method). The largest study site maintains a prospective registry of consecutive OHCA subjects, which we used to construct a "registry cohort". We used this cohort to calculate the sensitivity of the ICD-9CM-based search strategy at this site, and compared in-hospital mortality and discharge dispositions between the two cohorts using Chi-square tests. RESULTS: ICD-9CM codes identified 2461 subjects that comprised the administrative cohort. Of these, the true positive rate for actual OHCA on chart review was 40%. ICD9-CM code sensitivity was 100% for subjects coded as dead on arrival and 19% for subjects coded as surviving to ED disposition. There were 609 OHCA subjects in the registry cohort and 268 subjects in the administrative cohort who presented to registry site. Only 26 subjects appeared in both cohorts. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the administrative cohort than the registry cohort (91% vs. 61%, p<0.001), and hospital discharge disposition of survivors was less favorable (p<0.001). Neither difference persisted after excluding subjects surviving <6h. CONCLUSION: Compared to a prospective registry, ICD-9CM codes are an insensitive method to identify OHCA subjects. Moreover, ICD-9CM codes identify a biased sample of the OHCA population with higher mortality.
BACKGROUND: International Classification of Diseases 9th Edition's Clinical Modification (ICD-9CM) codes are frequently used in health services research. We tested the operating characteristics of ICD-9CM codes for identifying out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) subjects. METHODS: We used ICD-9CM codes to generate an "administrative cohort" of subjects treated after possible OHCA at one of six emergency departments (EDs) between January 2010 and April 2014. We performed a structured chart review to determine proportion of this administrative cohort with actual OHCA (true positive rate for the ICD-9CM-based search method). The largest study site maintains a prospective registry of consecutive OHCA subjects, which we used to construct a "registry cohort". We used this cohort to calculate the sensitivity of the ICD-9CM-based search strategy at this site, and compared in-hospital mortality and discharge dispositions between the two cohorts using Chi-square tests. RESULTS: ICD-9CM codes identified 2461 subjects that comprised the administrative cohort. Of these, the true positive rate for actual OHCA on chart review was 40%. ICD9-CM code sensitivity was 100% for subjects coded as dead on arrival and 19% for subjects coded as surviving to ED disposition. There were 609 OHCA subjects in the registry cohort and 268 subjects in the administrative cohort who presented to registry site. Only 26 subjects appeared in both cohorts. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the administrative cohort than the registry cohort (91% vs. 61%, p<0.001), and hospital discharge disposition of survivors was less favorable (p<0.001). Neither difference persisted after excluding subjects surviving <6h. CONCLUSION: Compared to a prospective registry, ICD-9CM codes are an insensitive method to identify OHCA subjects. Moreover, ICD-9CM codes identify a biased sample of the OHCA population with higher mortality.
Authors: Jennifer E Fugate; Waleed Brinjikji; Jay N Mandrekar; Harry J Cloft; Roger D White; Eelco F M Wijdicks; Alejandro A Rabinstein Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Virginia J Howard; Mary Cushman; Leavonne Pulley; Camilo R Gomez; Rodney C Go; Ronald J Prineas; Andra Graham; Claudia S Moy; George Howard Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2005-06-29 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Jonathan Elmer; Michael Scutella; Raghevesh Pullalarevu; Bo Wang; Nishit Vaghasia; Stephen Trzeciak; Bedda L Rosario-Rivera; Francis X Guyette; Jon C Rittenberger; Cameron Dezfulian Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Mohamud R Daya; Robert H Schmicker; Dana M Zive; Thomas D Rea; Graham Nichol; Jason E Buick; Steven Brooks; Jim Christenson; Renee MacPhee; Alan Craig; Jon C Rittenberger; Daniel P Davis; Susanne May; Jane Wigginton; Henry Wang Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Jon C Rittenberger; Francis X Guyette; Samuel A Tisherman; Michael A DeVita; Rene J Alvarez; Clifton W Callaway Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Chika Nishiyama; Siobhan P Brown; Susanne May; Taku Iwami; Rudolph W Koster; Stefanie G Beesems; Markku Kuisma; Ari Salo; Ian Jacobs; Judith Finn; Fritz Sterz; Alexander Nürnberger; Karen Smith; Laurie Morrison; Theresa M Olasveengen; Clifton W Callaway; Sang Do Shin; Jan-Thorsten Gräsner; Mohamud Daya; Matthew Huei-Ming Ma; Johan Herlitz; Anneli Strömsöe; Tom P Aufderheide; Siobhán Masterson; Henry Wang; Jim Christenson; Ian Stiell; Dan Davis; Ella Huszti; Graham Nichol Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Matthew R Murnin; Petra Sonder; Gladys N Janssens; Connie L Henry; Kees H Polderman; Jon C Rittenberger; Cameron Dezfulian Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Kenneth A Michelson; Joel D Hudgins; Michael C Monuteaux; Richard G Bachur; Jonathan A Finkelstein Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Alexis Steinberg; Jon C Rittenberger; Maria Baldwin; John Faro; Alexandra Urban; Naoir Zaher; Clifton W Callaway; Jonathan Elmer Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Jonathan Elmer; Jon C Rittenberger; Patrick J Coppler; Francis X Guyette; Ankur A Doshi; Clifton W Callaway Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2016-09-17 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Shelby K Shelton; Steve B Chukwulebe; David F Gaieski; Benjamin S Abella; Brendan G Carr; Sarah M Perman Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Anne V Grossestreuer; David F Gaieski; Michael W Donnino; Joshua I M Nelson; Eric L Mutter; Brendan G Carr; Benjamin S Abella; Douglas J Wiebe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Melanie R Wittwer; Mohammed Ishaq Ruknuddeen; Mel Thorrowgood; Chris Zeitz; John F Beltrame; Margaret A Arstall Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2021-05-16