Søgaard Kirstine Kobberøe, Thomsen Reimar Wernich, Schønheyder Henrik Carl, Søgaard Mette
Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Microbiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark ; Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Feb 12;7:195-9. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S75262. eCollection 2015.
Health care databases are a valuable resource for infectious disease epidemiology if diagnoses are accurately coded. We examined the ability of diagnostic coding to accurately identify Gram-negative bacteremia.
We randomly selected 100 patients among 1,703 patients recorded in the Danish National Patient Register with a diagnosis of either "septicemia/sepsis due to other Gram-negative organisms" (International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision [ICD-10] code A41.5) or "urosepsis" (ICD-10 code A41.9B) who had been admitted at Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark between 1994 and 2012. We estimated the positive predictive value (PPV) of these diagnoses for presence of Gram-negative bacteremia, using microbiological results from blood cultures as standard reference. Complementary clinical information was obtained from the medical records.
Of the 100 patients registered with Gram-negative septicemia/sepsis or urosepsis, 72 had blood culture confirmed Gram-negative bacteremia, four patients had monomicrobial Gram-positive bacteremia, 21 patients had a negative blood culture, and three had no blood culture taken. The overall PPV of a blood culture confirmed Gram-negative bacteremia diagnosis was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 62%-81%); for ICD-10 code A41.5 it was 86% (95% CI: 74%-94%) and for ICD-10 code A41.9B it was 55% (95% CI: 39%-70%). The highest PPV was achieved for diagnoses registered in the most recent calendar period (2009-2012) and for secondary discharge diagnoses.
Our findings indicated good agreement between ICD-10 code A41.5 "septicemia/sepsis due to other Gram-negative organisms" and Gram-negative bacteremia, whereas ICD-10 code A41.9B "urosepsis" was not suited for identification of Gram-negative bacteremia.
如果诊断编码准确,医疗保健数据库对于传染病流行病学来说是一种宝贵资源。我们研究了诊断编码准确识别革兰氏阴性菌血症的能力。
我们从丹麦国家患者登记处记录的1703例患者中随机选取100例,这些患者的诊断为“其他革兰氏阴性菌引起的败血症/脓毒症”(国际疾病分类第10版[ICD - 10]编码A41.5)或“泌尿道脓毒症”(ICD - 10编码A41.9B),于1994年至2012年期间在丹麦奥尔堡大学医院住院。我们以血培养的微生物学结果作为标准参考,估计这些诊断对于革兰氏阴性菌血症存在的阳性预测值(PPV)。从病历中获取补充临床信息。
在登记为革兰氏阴性败血症/脓毒症或泌尿道脓毒症的100例患者中,72例血培养证实为革兰氏阴性菌血症,4例为单一微生物革兰氏阳性菌血症,21例血培养阴性,3例未进行血培养。血培养证实的革兰氏阴性菌血症诊断的总体PPV为72%(95%置信区间[CI]:62% - 81%);对于ICD - 10编码A4I.5,PPV为86%(95% CI:74% - 94%),对于ICD - 10编码A41.9B,PPV为55%(95% CI:39% - 70%)。在最近日历期(2009 - 2012年)登记的诊断和二次出院诊断中,PPV最高。
我们的研究结果表明,ICD - 10编码A41.5“其他革兰氏阴性菌引起的败血症/脓毒症”与革兰氏阴性菌血症之间具有良好的一致性,而ICD - 10编码A41.9B“泌尿道脓毒症”不适合用于识别革兰氏阴性菌血症。