Juan J Gonzalez1, Jennifer Dziwis2, Yuval A Patel3, Elliot B Tapper4. 1. Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. juanjgon@umich.edu. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ascites is associated with significantly increased morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Large population studies are necessary to determine the burden and impact of ascites; however, ascites ICD-10 codes perform poorly in the identification of patients. METHODS: We utilized three independent retrospective cohorts at the University of Michigan (cohorts 1 and 2) and Duke University (cohort 3). Cohort 1: Child A5-6 patients followed up to 10 years (n = 150); cohort 2: Child A5-B7 patients with portal hypertension followed for up to 1 year (n = 65); cohort 3: cross-sectional cohort of patients evaluated for liver transplant (n = 100). We computed performance characteristics for ascites-related ICD-10 codes (K70.31, K70.11, K71.51, R18.8), as well as loop and/or potassium-sparing diuretics. RESULTS: A total of 315 patients were included across three cohorts. Algorithms including any ascites code provided better sensitivity and equivalent specificity to R18.8 alone for all cohorts. In cohort 2, we found that loop diuretics, potassium-sparing diuretics, and a combination of both with a cirrhosis code were highly sensitive (82.3% for each) and specific (89.1-93.5%). In contrast, ascites codes were insensitive. In patients with moderate-severe ascites, a combination of recorded diuretics showed high sensitivity and specificity (95.2% and 86.8%). In Cohort 3's transplant evaluation patients, we found that loop diuretics, potassium-sparing diuretics, and a combination of both with a cirrhosis code were highly sensitive (90.4%, 78.8% and 75.0%, respectively) and specific (85.0%, 90.0% and 95.0%, respectively). For moderate-severe cirrhosis, loop diuretics and R18.8 showed higher sensitivity (77.8%) and specificity (88.9%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Diuretic records with a cirrhosis code improve the identification of ascites. This method for identifying ascites should be used in future large dataset studies.
BACKGROUND: Ascites is associated with significantly increased morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Large population studies are necessary to determine the burden and impact of ascites; however, ascites ICD-10 codes perform poorly in the identification of patients. METHODS: We utilized three independent retrospective cohorts at the University of Michigan (cohorts 1 and 2) and Duke University (cohort 3). Cohort 1: Child A5-6 patients followed up to 10 years (n = 150); cohort 2: Child A5-B7 patients with portal hypertension followed for up to 1 year (n = 65); cohort 3: cross-sectional cohort of patients evaluated for liver transplant (n = 100). We computed performance characteristics for ascites-related ICD-10 codes (K70.31, K70.11, K71.51, R18.8), as well as loop and/or potassium-sparing diuretics. RESULTS: A total of 315 patients were included across three cohorts. Algorithms including any ascites code provided better sensitivity and equivalent specificity to R18.8 alone for all cohorts. In cohort 2, we found that loop diuretics, potassium-sparing diuretics, and a combination of both with a cirrhosis code were highly sensitive (82.3% for each) and specific (89.1-93.5%). In contrast, ascites codes were insensitive. In patients with moderate-severe ascites, a combination of recorded diuretics showed high sensitivity and specificity (95.2% and 86.8%). In Cohort 3's transplant evaluation patients, we found that loop diuretics, potassium-sparing diuretics, and a combination of both with a cirrhosis code were highly sensitive (90.4%, 78.8% and 75.0%, respectively) and specific (85.0%, 90.0% and 95.0%, respectively). For moderate-severe cirrhosis, loop diuretics and R18.8 showed higher sensitivity (77.8%) and specificity (88.9%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Diuretic records with a cirrhosis code improve the identification of ascites. This method for identifying ascites should be used in future large dataset studies.
Authors: Fasiha Kanwal; Jennifer R Kramer; Paula Buchanan; Steven M Asch; Youssef Assioun; Bruce R Bacon; Juan Li; Hashem B El-Serag Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Claire S Burton; Gabriela Gonzalez; Eunice Choi; Catherine Bresee; Teryl K Nuckols; Karyn S Eilber; Neil S Wenger; Jennifer T Anger Journal: Am J Med Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 5.928
Authors: Mahendra S Nehra; Ying Ma; Christopher Clark; Ruben Amarasingham; Don C Rockey; Amit G Singal Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2013 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.062
Authors: Lauren Lapointe-Shaw; Firass Georgie; David Carlone; Orlando Cerocchi; Hannah Chung; Yvonne Dewit; Jordan J Feld; Laura Holder; Jeffrey C Kwong; Beate Sander; Jennifer A Flemming Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-08-22 Impact factor: 3.240