Ferro Enrico G, Reynolds Matthew R, Xu Jiaman, Song Yang, Cohen David J, Wadhera Rishi K, d'Avila Andre, Zimetbaum Peter J, Yeh Robert W, Kramer Daniel B
Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School Boston MA USA.
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School Boston MA USA.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2025 Jan 21;14(2):e037003. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.124.037003. Epub 2025 Jan 10.
Use of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) to treat atrial fibrillation continues to increase. Despite great interest in leveraging administrative data for real-world analyses, contemporary procedural codes for identifying PVI have not been evaluated.
In this observational retrospective cohort study, inpatient PVIs were identified among US Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 93656 in Carrier Line Files. Each patient was matched with their claims from Medicare Provider Analysis and Review to compare CPT with , , () claims submitted by health care facilities to bill for PVIs. We performed the reverse for commonly matched codes, to identify corresponding CPT-billed procedures. Finally, we reviewed institutional cases for additional comparison of CPT and assignation for PVI. We identified 25 617 inpatient PVIs from January 2017 to December 2021, of which 18 165 (71%) were linked to Medicare Provider Analysis and Review. Of these, 16 672 (92%) were billed as 02583ZZ: "Destruction of Conduction Mechanism, Percutaneous Approach." The reverse process yielded heterogeneous results: among 75 003 procedures billed as 02583ZZ, only 15 691 (21%) matched with CPT 93656 (PVI), as several other unrelated procedures were billed under this code. Institutional case review confirmed the greater specificity of CPT codes.
The code associated with CPT-billed PVI procedures actually referred to ablation of the atrioventricular junction. Yet this code also matched with a wide range of other procedures distinct from PVI. We conclude that codes alone are not sensitive nor specific for identifying PVI in claims and cannot be reliably used in isolation for health services research on this important procedure.
肺静脉隔离术(PVI)用于治疗心房颤动的情况持续增加。尽管人们对利用行政数据进行真实世界分析兴趣浓厚,但用于识别PVI的当代程序编码尚未得到评估。
在这项观察性回顾性队列研究中,利用医保报销文件中的现行程序编码(CPT)93656在美国医疗保险按服务付费受益人群中识别住院患者的肺静脉隔离术。将每位患者与其医疗保险提供者分析与审查的理赔申请进行匹配,以比较CPT与医疗保健机构提交的用于PVI计费的[具体编码1]、[具体编码2]、[具体编码3]([具体编码名称])理赔申请。对于常见匹配的[具体编码名称]编码,我们进行反向操作,以识别相应的CPT计费程序。最后,我们审查机构病例,以进一步比较CPT与PVI的编码分配。我们在2017年1月至2021年12月期间识别出25617例住院患者的肺静脉隔离术,其中18165例(71%)与医疗保险提供者分析与审查相关联。在这些病例中,16672例(92%)被计费为02583ZZ:“经皮途径破坏传导机制”。反向操作产生了异质性结果:在75003例计费为02583ZZ的手术中,只有15691例(21%)与CPT 93656(肺静脉隔离术)匹配,因为在此编码下还计费了其他一些不相关的手术。机构病例审查证实了CPT编码具有更高的特异性。
与CPT计费的PVI手术相关的[具体编码名称]编码实际上指的是房室结消融。然而,这个[具体编码名称]编码也与一系列不同于PVI的其他手术相匹配。我们得出结论,仅[具体编码名称]编码在理赔申请中识别PVI既不敏感也不特异,不能单独可靠地用于关于这一重要手术的卫生服务研究。