Suppr超能文献

国际疾病分类第十版编码在脓毒症危重症患者心房颤动/扑动中的有效性。

Validity of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes for atrial fibrillation/flutter in critically ill patients with sepsis.

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Department of Pharmacy, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.

出版信息

Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2024 Aug;43(4):101398. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2024.101398. Epub 2024 May 29.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL) are frequently seen in critically ill sepsis patients and are associated with poor outcomes. There is a need for further research, however, studies are limited due to challenges in identifying patient cohorts. Administrative data using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) are routinely used for identifying disease cohorts in large datasets. However, the validity of ICD-10 for AF/AFL remains unexplored in these populations.

METHODS

This validation study included 6554 adults with sepsis and septic shock admitted to the intensive care unit. We sought to determine whether ICD-10 coding could accurately identify patients with and without AF/AFL compared to manual chart review. We also evaluated whether the date of ICD-10 code entry could distinguish prevalent from incident AF/AFL, presuming codes dated during the index admission to be incident AF/AFL. A manual chart review was performed on 400 randomly selected patients for confirmation of AF/AFL, and validity was measured using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).

RESULTS

Among the 400 randomly selected patients, 293 lacked ICD-10 codes for AF/AFL. The manual chart review confirmed the absence of AF/AFL in 286 patients (NPV 97.3%, specificity 99.7%). Among the 107 patients with ICD-10 codes for AF/AFL, 106 were confirmed to have AF/AFL by manual chart review (PPV 99.1%, sensitivity 93.0%). Out of the 114 patients with confirmed AF/AFL, 44 had ICD-10 codes dated during the index admission. All 44 were confirmed to have AF/AFL, however, 18 patients had prior documentation of AF/AFL (incident AF/AFL: PPV 59.1%). Specificity for incident (95.1%) and prevalent (99.7%) AF/AFL were high; however, sensitivity was 76.5% and 77.5%, respectively.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: ICD-10 codes perform well in identifying clinical AF/AFL in critically ill sepsis. However, their temporal specificity in distinguishing incidents from prevalent AF/AFL is limited.

摘要

背景

心房颤动(AF)和心房扑动(AFL)在重症脓毒症患者中很常见,与不良结局相关。然而,需要进一步研究,由于难以确定患者队列,研究受到限制。使用国际疾病分类,第十版(ICD-10)的行政数据通常用于在大型数据集识别疾病队列。然而,ICD-10 在这些人群中用于 AF/AFL 的准确性仍未得到探索。

方法

本验证研究纳入了 6554 例入住重症监护病房的脓毒症和脓毒性休克成人患者。我们试图确定与手动图表审查相比,ICD-10 编码是否可以准确识别 AF/AFL 患者和非 AF/AFL 患者。我们还评估了 ICD-10 编码输入日期是否可以区分首发和复发 AF/AFL,假定索引入院期间的编码为首发 AF/AFL。对 400 例随机选择的患者进行了手动图表审查以确认 AF/AFL,使用敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)来衡量有效性。

结果

在随机选择的 400 例患者中,有 293 例缺乏 AF/AFL 的 ICD-10 编码。手动图表审查确认 286 例患者中无 AF/AFL(NPV 97.3%,特异性 99.7%)。在 107 例有 AF/AFL ICD-10 编码的患者中,106 例经手动图表审查确认有 AF/AFL(PPV 99.1%,敏感性 93.0%)。在 114 例确诊为 AF/AFL 的患者中,有 44 例的 ICD-10 编码日期在索引入院期间。所有 44 例均被确认为 AF/AFL,但有 18 例之前有 AF/AFL 记录(首发 AF/AFL:PPV 59.1%)。首发(95.1%)和复发(99.7%)AF/AFL 的特异性很高;然而,敏感性分别为 76.5%和 77.5%。

讨论/结论:ICD-10 编码在识别重症脓毒症中的临床 AF/AFL 方面表现良好。然而,它们在区分首发和复发 AF/AFL 方面的时间特异性有限。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验