Ashraf Fawzy1, Mark Bradford2, Peter K Lindenauer3, Allan J Walkey1,2. 1. 1 Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, and. 2. 2 The Pulmonary Center, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts; and. 3. 3 Center for Quality of Care Research and Division of General Internal Medicine, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Identifying vasopressor and inotrope (vasopressor) use from administrative claims data may provide an important resource to study the epidemiology of shock. OBJECTIVES: Determine accuracy of identifying vasopressor use using International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) coding. METHODS: Using administrative data enriched with pharmacy billing files (Premier, Inc., Charlotte, NC), we identified two cohorts: adult patients admitted with a diagnosis of sepsis from 2010 to 2013 or pulmonary embolism (PE) from 2008 to 2011. Vasopressor administration was obtained using pharmacy billing files (dopamine, dobutamine, epinephrine, milrinone, norepinephrine, phenylephrine, vasopressin) and compared with ICD-9-CM procedure code for vasopressor administration (00.17). We estimated performance characteristics of the ICD-9-CM code and compared patients' characteristics and mortality rates according to vasopressor identification method. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using either pharmacy data or the ICD-9-CM procedure code, 29% of 541,144 patients in the sepsis cohort and 5% of 81,588 patients in the PE cohort were identified as receiving a vasopressor. In the sepsis cohort, the ICD-9-CM procedure code had low sensitivity (9.4%; 95% confidence interval, 9.2-9.5), which increased over time. Results were similar in the PE cohort (sensitivity, 5.8%; 95% confidence interval, 5.1-6.6). The ICD-9-CM code exhibited high specificity in the sepsis (99.8%) and PE (100%) cohorts. However, patients identified as receiving vasopressors by ICD-9-CM code had significantly higher unadjusted in-hospital mortality, had more acute organ failures, and were more likely hospitalized in the Northeast and West. CONCLUSIONS: The ICD-9-CM procedure code for vasopressor administration has low sensitivity and selects for higher severity of illness in studies of shock. Temporal changes in sensitivity would likely make longitudinal shock surveillance using ICD-9-CM inaccurate.
RATIONALE: Identifying vasopressor and inotrope (vasopressor) use from administrative claims data may provide an important resource to study the epidemiology of shock. OBJECTIVES: Determine accuracy of identifying vasopressor use using International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) coding. METHODS: Using administrative data enriched with pharmacy billing files (Premier, Inc., Charlotte, NC), we identified two cohorts: adult patients admitted with a diagnosis of sepsis from 2010 to 2013 or pulmonary embolism (PE) from 2008 to 2011. Vasopressor administration was obtained using pharmacy billing files (dopamine, dobutamine, epinephrine, milrinone, norepinephrine, phenylephrine, vasopressin) and compared with ICD-9-CM procedure code for vasopressor administration (00.17). We estimated performance characteristics of the ICD-9-CM code and compared patients' characteristics and mortality rates according to vasopressor identification method. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using either pharmacy data or the ICD-9-CM procedure code, 29% of 541,144 patients in the sepsis cohort and 5% of 81,588 patients in the PE cohort were identified as receiving a vasopressor. In the sepsis cohort, the ICD-9-CM procedure code had low sensitivity (9.4%; 95% confidence interval, 9.2-9.5), which increased over time. Results were similar in the PE cohort (sensitivity, 5.8%; 95% confidence interval, 5.1-6.6). The ICD-9-CM code exhibited high specificity in the sepsis (99.8%) and PE (100%) cohorts. However, patients identified as receiving vasopressors by ICD-9-CM code had significantly higher unadjusted in-hospital mortality, had more acute organ failures, and were more likely hospitalized in the Northeast and West. CONCLUSIONS: The ICD-9-CM procedure code for vasopressor administration has low sensitivity and selects for higher severity of illness in studies of shock. Temporal changes in sensitivity would likely make longitudinal shock surveillance using ICD-9-CM inaccurate.
Entities:
Keywords:
international classification of diseases; pulmonary embolism; sepsis; shock; vasoconstrictor agents
Authors: Yasser Sakr; Konrad Reinhart; Jean-Louis Vincent; Charles L Sprung; Rui Moreno; V Marco Ranieri; Daniel De Backer; Didier Payen Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Roland A Hernandez; Nathanael D Hevelone; Lenny Lopez; Samuel R G Finlayson; Eva Chittenden; Zara Cooper Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Marie Dam Lauridsen; Henrik Gammelager; Morten Schmidt; Henrik Nielsen; Christian Fynbo Christiansen Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2015-03-20 Impact factor: 4.615