Abstract 14344: Pitfalls of ICD-10 Codes for Identifying Pulmonary Embolism in Electronic Records: Results From the Multicenter PE-EHR+ Study

dc.contributor.authorBehnood Bikdeli
dc.contributor.authorAntoine Bejjani
dc.contributor.authorCandrika D. Khairani
dc.contributor.authorYing-Chih Lo
dc.contributor.authorDavid Jiménez
dc.contributor.authorStefano Barco
dc.contributor.authorShiwani Mahajan
dc.contributor.authorCésar Caraballo
dc.contributor.authorEric A. Secemsky
dc.contributor.authorFrederikus A. Klok
dc.coverage.spatialBolivia
dc.date.accessioned2026-03-22T15:18:34Z
dc.date.available2026-03-22T15:18:34Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.descriptionCitaciones: 3
dc.description.abstractBackground: Many research studies from electronic databases and even the American Heart Association annual statistics for pulmonary embolism (PE) rely on the International Classification of Disease, 10 th modification (ICD-10) codes. However, the validity of ICD-10 codes for PE remains uncertain. Methods: Using a pre-specified protocol, we identified three groups of patients in the Mass General-Brigham Health system hospitals (MGB, 2016-2021) in equal distribution: Those with ICD-10 Principal discharge codes for PE, those with ICD-10 secondary codes for PE, and those without codes for PE (N=578 each). The accuracy of ICD-10 codes for identification of PE was assessed in reference to review of each chart by two independent physicians who used pre-specified criteria for presence of PE. Weighted estimates were obtained by considering the total of number of hospitalizations at MGB in each group. Results: After excluding duplicates, 1712 entered the analysis (age: 60.6 years, 52.3% female). Using the ICD-10 PEs only in the Principal discharge diagnosis, sensitivity and specificity were 60.3% and 94.6%, respectively. Although use of Principal-or-secondary ICD-10 PE codes had a sensitivity of 99.8% in the study sample, the weighted sensitivity in the parent cohort was reduced to 83.2%. The positive predictive value of Principal ICD-10 discharge codes and Principal-or-secondary ICD-10 codes were 91.9% and 79.2%, respectively (Table). Conclusions: Although the Principal discharge diagnosis codes for PE have an excellent positive predictive value, they miss nearly 40% of new PE events in hospitalized patients. Integration of secondary discharge codes only partially improves the sensitivity at the cost of reducing the positive predictive value, highlighting the need for modified strategies, such as use combination with procedure codes, or use of natural language processing -when feasible -for identification of patients with PE.
dc.identifier.doi10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.14344
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.14344
dc.identifier.urihttps://andeanlibrary.org/handle/123456789/51615
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkins
dc.relation.ispartofCirculation
dc.sourceBrigham and Women's Hospital
dc.subjectMedicine
dc.subjectDiagnosis code
dc.subjectPulmonary embolism
dc.subjectICD-10
dc.subjectCohort
dc.subjectCohort study
dc.subjectPediatrics
dc.titleAbstract 14344: Pitfalls of ICD-10 Codes for Identifying Pulmonary Embolism in Electronic Records: Results From the Multicenter PE-EHR+ Study
dc.typearticle

Files