Margaret C Fang1, Dongjie Fan, Sue Hee Sung, Daniel M Witt, John R Schmelzer, Steven R Steinhubl, Steven H Yale, Alan S Go. 1. *Division of Hospital Medicine, University of California, San Francisco †Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, CA ‡Department of Pharmacotherapy, University of Utah College of Pharmacy, Salt Lake City, UT §Office for Health Services, Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, Marshfield, WI ∥Geisinger Health System, Center for Health Research, Danville, PA ¶Scripps Translational Science Institute, La Jolla, CA #Departments of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Medicine, University of California, San Francisco **Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Administrative data are frequently used to identify venous thromboembolism (VTE) for research and quality reporting. However, the validity of these codes, particularly in outpatients, has not been well-established. OBJECTIVE: To determine how well International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes for VTE predict chart-confirmed acute VTE in inpatient and outpatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We selected 4642 adults with an incident ICD-9 diagnosis of VTE between years 2004 and 2010 from the Cardiovascular Research Network Venous Thromboembolism cohort study. Medical charts were reviewed to determine validity of events. Positive predictive values (PPVs) of ICD-9 codes were calculated as the number of chart-validated VTE events divided by the number with specific VTE codes. Analyses were stratified by VTE type [pulmonary embolism (PE), deep venous thrombosis (DVT)], code position (primary, secondary), and setting [hospital/emergency department (ED), outpatient]. RESULTS: The PPV for any diagnosis of VTE was 64.6% for hospital/ED patients and 30.9% for outpatients. Primary diagnosis codes from hospital/ED patients were more likely to represent acute VTE than secondary diagnosis codes (78.9% vs. 44.4%, P<0.001). Primary hospital/ED codes for PE and lower extremity DVT had higher PPV than for upper extremity DVT (89.1%, 74.9%, and 58.1%, respectively). Outpatient codes were poorly predictive of acute VTE: 28.0% for PE and 53.6% for lower extremity DVT. CONCLUSIONS: ICD-9 codes for VTE obtained from outpatient encounters or from secondary diagnosis codes do not reliably reflect acute VTE. More accurate ways of identifying VTE in outpatients are needed before these codes can be adopted for research or policy purposes.
BACKGROUND: Administrative data are frequently used to identify venous thromboembolism (VTE) for research and quality reporting. However, the validity of these codes, particularly in outpatients, has not been well-established. OBJECTIVE: To determine how well International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes for VTE predict chart-confirmed acute VTE in inpatient and outpatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We selected 4642 adults with an incident ICD-9 diagnosis of VTE between years 2004 and 2010 from the Cardiovascular Research Network Venous Thromboembolism cohort study. Medical charts were reviewed to determine validity of events. Positive predictive values (PPVs) of ICD-9 codes were calculated as the number of chart-validated VTE events divided by the number with specific VTE codes. Analyses were stratified by VTE type [pulmonary embolism (PE), deep venous thrombosis (DVT)], code position (primary, secondary), and setting [hospital/emergency department (ED), outpatient]. RESULTS: The PPV for any diagnosis of VTE was 64.6% for hospital/ED patients and 30.9% for outpatients. Primary diagnosis codes from hospital/ED patients were more likely to represent acute VTE than secondary diagnosis codes (78.9% vs. 44.4%, P<0.001). Primary hospital/ED codes for PE and lower extremity DVT had higher PPV than for upper extremity DVT (89.1%, 74.9%, and 58.1%, respectively). Outpatient codes were poorly predictive of acute VTE: 28.0% for PE and 53.6% for lower extremity DVT. CONCLUSIONS: ICD-9 codes for VTE obtained from outpatient encounters or from secondary diagnosis codes do not reliably reflect acute VTE. More accurate ways of identifying VTE in outpatients are needed before these codes can be adopted for research or policy purposes.
Authors: Brandyn D Lau; Elliott R Haut; Deborah B Hobson; Peggy S Kraus; Chepkorir Maritim; J Matthew Austin; Kenneth M Shermock; Bhunesh Maheshwari; Paul X Allen; Aileen Almario; Michael B Streiff Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Karl Y Bilimoria; Jeanette Chung; Mila H Ju; Elliott R Haut; David J Bentrem; Clifford Y Ko; David W Baker Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Raman R Khanna; Sharon B Kim; Ian Jenkins; Robert El-Kareh; Nasim Afsarmanesh; Alpesh Amin; Heather Sand; Andrew Auerbach; Catherine Y Chia; Gregory Maynard; Patrick S Romano; Richard H White Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: James Tsai; Althea M Grant; Michele G Beckman; Scott D Grosse; Hussain R Yusuf; Lisa C Richardson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Thomas L Ortel; Katie Arnold; Michele Beckman; Audrey Brown; Nimia Reyes; Ibrahim Saber; Ryan Schulteis; Bhavana Pendurthi Singh; Andrea Sitlinger; Elizabeth H Thames Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-07-31 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Kueiyu Joshua Lin; Robert J Glynn; Daniel E Singer; Shawn N Murphy; Joyce Lii; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: K M Sauro; A Soo; A Kramer; P Couillard; J Kromm; D Zygun; D J Niven; S M Bagshaw; H T Stelfox Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Henry T Stelfox; Rebecca Brundin-Mather; Andrea Soo; Jeanna Parsons Leigh; Daniel J Niven; Kirsten M Fiest; Christopher James Doig; Danny J Zuege; Barry Kushner; Fiona Clement; Sharon E Straus; Deborah J Cook; Sean M Bagshaw; Khara M Sauro Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Christine Baumgartner; Alan S Go; Dongjie Fan; Sue Hee Sung; Daniel M Witt; John R Schmelzer; Marc S Williams; Steven H Yale; Jeffrey J VanWormer; Margaret C Fang Journal: Thromb Res Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 3.944