Shimena R Li1, Robert M Handzel2, Daniel Tonetti3, Jason Kennedy4, Katherine Shapiro5, Matthew R Rosengart2, Daniel E Hall6, Christopher Seymour4, Edith Tzeng7, Katherine M Reitz7. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: lisr@upmc.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Departments of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Departments of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 6. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Department of Surgery, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Wolff Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 7. Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Department of Surgery, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Unlike antibiotic and perfusion support, guidelines for sepsis source control lack high-quality evidence and are ungraded. Internally valid administrative data methods are needed to identify cases representing source control procedures to evaluate outcomes. METHODS: Over five modified Delphi rounds, two independent reviewers identified Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes pertinent to source control. In each round, codes with perfect agreement were retained or excluded, whereas disagreements were reviewed by the panelists. Manual review of 400 patient records meeting Sepsis-3 criteria (2010-2017) clinically adjudicated which encounters included source control procedures (gold standard). The performance of consensus codes was compared with the gold standard to assess sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios. RESULTS: Of 5752 CPT codes, 609 consensus codes represented source control procedures. Of 400 hospitalizations for sepsis, 39 (9.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.0%-13.1%) underwent gold standard source control procedures and 29 (7.3%; 95% CI 4.9-10.3%) consensus code-defined source control procedures. Thirty consensus codes were identified (20.0% gastrointestinal/intraabdominal, 10.0% genitourinary, 13.3% hepatopancreatobiliary, 23.3% orthopedic/cranial, 23.3% soft tissue, and 10.0% intrathoracic), which had 61.5% (95% CI 44.6%-76.6%) sensitivity, 98.6% (95% CI 96.8%-99.6%) specificity, 83.2% (95% CI 66.6%-92.4%) positive, and 95.9% (95% CI 93.9%-97.2%) negative predictive values. With pretest probability at sample prevalence, an identified consensus code had a posttest probability of 83.0% (95% CI 66.0%-92.0%), whereas consensus code absence had a probability of 4.0% (95% CI 3.0-6.0) for undergoing a source control procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Using modified Delphi methodology, we created and validated CPT codes identifying source control procedures, providing a framework for evaluation of the surgical care of patients with sepsis.
INTRODUCTION: Unlike antibiotic and perfusion support, guidelines for sepsis source control lack high-quality evidence and are ungraded. Internally valid administrative data methods are needed to identify cases representing source control procedures to evaluate outcomes. METHODS: Over five modified Delphi rounds, two independent reviewers identified Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes pertinent to source control. In each round, codes with perfect agreement were retained or excluded, whereas disagreements were reviewed by the panelists. Manual review of 400 patient records meeting Sepsis-3 criteria (2010-2017) clinically adjudicated which encounters included source control procedures (gold standard). The performance of consensus codes was compared with the gold standard to assess sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios. RESULTS: Of 5752 CPT codes, 609 consensus codes represented source control procedures. Of 400 hospitalizations for sepsis, 39 (9.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.0%-13.1%) underwent gold standard source control procedures and 29 (7.3%; 95% CI 4.9-10.3%) consensus code-defined source control procedures. Thirty consensus codes were identified (20.0% gastrointestinal/intraabdominal, 10.0% genitourinary, 13.3% hepatopancreatobiliary, 23.3% orthopedic/cranial, 23.3% soft tissue, and 10.0% intrathoracic), which had 61.5% (95% CI 44.6%-76.6%) sensitivity, 98.6% (95% CI 96.8%-99.6%) specificity, 83.2% (95% CI 66.6%-92.4%) positive, and 95.9% (95% CI 93.9%-97.2%) negative predictive values. With pretest probability at sample prevalence, an identified consensus code had a posttest probability of 83.0% (95% CI 66.0%-92.0%), whereas consensus code absence had a probability of 4.0% (95% CI 3.0-6.0) for undergoing a source control procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Using modified Delphi methodology, we created and validated CPT codes identifying source control procedures, providing a framework for evaluation of the surgical care of patients with sepsis.
Authors: Robert G Sawyer; Jeffrey A Claridge; Avery B Nathens; Ori D Rotstein; Therese M Duane; Heather L Evans; Charles H Cook; Patrick J O'Neill; John E Mazuski; Reza Askari; Mark A Wilson; Lena M Napolitano; Nicholas Namias; Preston R Miller; E Patchen Dellinger; Christopher M Watson; Raul Coimbra; Daniel L Dent; Stephen F Lowry; Christine S Cocanour; Michaela A West; Kaysie L Banton; William G Cheadle; Pamela A Lipsett; Christopher A Guidry; Kimberley Popovsky Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrew Rhodes; Laura E Evans; Waleed Alhazzani; Mitchell M Levy; Massimo Antonelli; Ricard Ferrer; Anand Kumar; Jonathan E Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Mark E Nunnally; Bram Rochwerg; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Derek C Angus; Djillali Annane; Richard J Beale; Geoffrey J Bellinghan; Gordon R Bernard; Jean-Daniel Chiche; Craig Coopersmith; Daniel P De Backer; Craig J French; Seitaro Fujishima; Herwig Gerlach; Jorge Luis Hidalgo; Steven M Hollenberg; Alan E Jones; Dilip R Karnad; Ruth M Kleinpell; Younsuk Koh; Thiago Costa Lisboa; Flavia R Machado; John J Marini; John C Marshall; John E Mazuski; Lauralyn A McIntyre; Anthony S McLean; Sangeeta Mehta; Rui P Moreno; John Myburgh; Paolo Navalesi; Osamu Nishida; Tiffany M Osborn; Anders Perner; Colleen M Plunkett; Marco Ranieri; Christa A Schorr; Maureen A Seckel; Christopher W Seymour; Lisa Shieh; Khalid A Shukri; Steven Q Simpson; Mervyn Singer; B Taylor Thompson; Sean R Townsend; Thomas Van der Poll; Jean-Louis Vincent; W Joost Wiersinga; Janice L Zimmerman; R Phillip Dellinger Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Myrick C Shinall; Shipra Arya; Ada Youk; Patrick Varley; Rupen Shah; Nader N Massarweh; Paula K Shireman; Jason M Johanning; Alaina J Brown; Neil A Christie; Lawrence Crist; Catherine M Curtin; Brian C Drolet; Rajeev Dhupar; Jennifer Griffin; James W Ibinson; Jonas T Johnson; Sonja Kinney; Chad LaGrange; Alexander Langerman; Gary E Loyd; Leila J Mady; Michael P Mott; Murali Patri; Justin C Siebler; C J Stimson; William E Thorell; Scott A Vincent; Daniel E Hall Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: María Luisa Martínez; Ricard Ferrer; Eva Torrents; Raquel Guillamat-Prats; Gemma Gomà; David Suárez; Luis Álvarez-Rocha; Juan Carlos Pozo Laderas; Ignacio Martín-Loeches; Mitchell M Levy; Antonio Artigas Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Pamela J Levine; Miriam R Elman; Ravina Kullar; John M Townes; David T Bearden; Rowena Vilches-Tran; Ian McClellan; Jessina C McGregor Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2013-04-10 Impact factor: 3.090