Cited by 118

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validity of International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 Diagnosis Codes for Identification of Acute Heart Failure Hospitalization and Heart Failure with Reduced Versus Preserved Ejection Fraction in a National Medicare Sample

Bates, Benjamin A., Akhabue, Ehimare, Nahass, Meghan M., Mukherjee, Abhigyan, Hiltner, Emily, Rock, Joanna, Wilton, Brandon, Mittal, Garima, Visaria, Aayush, Rua, Melanie, Gandhi, Poonam, Dave, Chintan V., Setoguchi, Soko·2023·Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

Abstract

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of hospitalization in older adults. Medicare data have been used to assess HF outcomes. However, the validity of ICD-10 diagnosis codes (used since 2015) to identify acute HF hospitalization or distinguish reduced (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is unknown in Medicare data. Methods: Using Medicare data (2015–2017), we randomly sampled 200 HF hospitalizations with ICD-10 diagnosis codes for HF in the first/second claim position in a 1:1:2 ratio for systolic HF (I50.2), diastolic HF (I50.3), and other HF (I50.X). The primary gold standards included recorded HF diagnosis by a treating physician for HF hospitalization, ejection fraction (EF)≤50 for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and EF>50 for HFpEF. If the quantitative EF was not present, then qualitative descriptions of EF were used for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction/HFpEF gold standards. Multiple secondary gold standards were also tested. Gold standard data were extracted from medical records using standardized forms and adjudicated by cardiology fellows/staff. We calculated positive predictive values with 95% CIs. Results: The 200-chart validation sample included 50 systolic, 50 diastolic, 47 combined dysfunction, and 53 unspecified HF patients. The positive predictive values of acute HF hospitalization was 98% [95% CI, 95–100] for first-position ICD-10 HF diagnosis and 66% [95% CI, 58–74] for first/second-position diagnosis. Quantitative EF was available for ≥80% of patients with systolic, diastolic, or combined dysfunction ICD-10 codes. The positive predictive value of systolic HF codes was 90% [95% CI, 82–98] for EFs≤50% and 72% [95% CI, 60–85] for EFs≤40%. The positive predictive value was 92% [95% CI, 85–100] for HFpEF for EFs>50%. The ICD-10 codes for combined or unspecified HF poorly predicted heart failure with reduced ejection fraction or HFpEF. Conclusions: ICD-10 principal diagnosis identified acute HF hospitalization with a high positive predictive value. Systolic and diastolic ICD-10 diagnoses reliably identified heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and HFpEF when EF 50% was used as the cutoff.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circoutcomes.122.009078

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The primary study end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure, defined by inpatient primary diagnosis claims with positive predictive value 98%, or all-cause mortality, with sensitivity greater than 99% compared with the National Death Index.

    “The primary study end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure (defined by inpatient primary diagnosis claims; positive predictive value = 98%) or all-cause mortality (sensitivity >99% compared with the National Death Index).31,32”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.01.022 · DOI
  2. 10.1056/NEJMsa0803563 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1016/j.cjca.2016.05.005 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.09.038 · DOI
  5. 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.3511 · DOI
  6. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.039177 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.876383 · DOI
  8. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018610 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.12.040 · DOI
  10. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030514 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.022 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100933 · DOI
  13. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057756 · DOI
  14. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.028077 · DOI
  15. 10.1001/jama.2010.920 · DOI
  16. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020455 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.cardfail.2015.07.013 · DOI
  18. 10.1002/ejhf.505 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.02.014 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.08.1628 · DOI
  21. 10.1186/s12872-019-1175-3 · DOI
  22. 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000509 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1177/2047487319854140 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.10.003 · DOI
  25. 10.1002/ehf2.12779 · DOI
  26. 10.1002/prp2.676 · DOI
  27. 10.1186/s12872-018-0866-5 · DOI
  28. 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.004700 · DOI
  29. 10.1002/pds.2146 · DOI
  30. 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.3511 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.07.081 · DOI
  32. 10.1067/mhj.2002.123839 · DOI
  33. 10.1002/pds.2313 · DOI
  34. 10.1097/00005650-200502000-00012 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/j.ejheart.2008.01.014 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/s0735-1097(01)01700-4 · DOI
  37. 10.1056/NEJMoa052256 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.gheart.2012.12.006 · DOI
  39. 10.7326/0003-4819-159-3-201308060-00009 · DOI
  40. 10.15265/IYS-2016-s006 · DOI
  41. 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu216 · DOI
  42. 10.1161/JAHA.113.000242 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bates, B. A., Akhabue, E., Nahass, M. M., Mukherjee, A., Hiltner, E., Rock, J., Wilton, B., Mittal, G., Visaria, A., Rua, M., Gandhi, P., Dave, C. V., & Setoguchi, S.
Affiliations
  • Center for Pharmacoepidemiology and Treatment Science, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ (B.A.B., M.R., P.G., C.V.D., S.S.).
  • Department of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ (B.A.B., E.A., M.M.N., A.M., E.H., J.R., B.W., A.V., S.S.).
  • Rutgers School of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ (G.M.).
Venue
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Published
2023-02
Volume
16
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 1941-7713
  • 1941-7705
Cited by
118
References
4
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review