Department of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Department of Pharmacy, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2024 Aug;43(4):101398. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2024.101398. Epub 2024 May 29.
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.
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).
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.
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。
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。
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。