Accuracy of administrative data for identification of patients with infective endocarditis
Introduction
Infective endocarditis is a serious condition that continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite innovations in the detection and management of this disease, mortality has plateaued in recent decades; in-hospital mortality ranges from 15 to 30%, while five-year mortality is approximately 40% [1], [2], [3]. Non-lethal complications are common and can be debilitating, often necessitating prolonged, intensive and costly medical care [4], [5], [6].
These persistent challenges underscore the need for ongoing research of the epidemiology and outcomes of patients with infective endocarditis. Administrative databases represent a comprehensive and easily accessible source of patient information, and have been widely used to study this condition [6], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. In particular, with recent changes in the guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infective endocarditis, administrative databases have been used to evaluate the impact of such changes on disease incidence at the population level [14], [15], [16]. However, the utility of such research depends on accurate application of diagnostic codes. We therefore sought to validate the accuracy of the International Classification of Diseases 10th revision (ICD-10-CM) codes for infective endocarditis against a clinical reference standard.
Section snippets
General study design and data sources
We conducted a retrospective validation study of administrative codes for infective endocarditis using medical records from Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (SHSC), a large, acute care teaching hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The study was approved by the SHSC Research Ethics Board. We identified all patients who were discharged from SHSC with ICD-10-CM codes for infective endocarditis in any diagnostic field between October 1, 2013 and June 30, 2015. I33 (acute and subacute infective
Results
From October 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015, 119 discharges from SHSC received an ICD-10-CM code for infective endocarditis (I33, I38, I39), representing 99 unique patients. During the same period, there were 35,172 unique patients admitted to a medical or surgical service. The microbiology database yielded 477 patients with one or more positive blood cultures for microorganisms that commonly cause infective endocarditis, of whom 10 were included in the study. The valve surgery database included 262
Discussion
Administrative databases are critical to clinical epidemiology research involving rare conditions such as infective endocarditis, because many important observational research questions can only be addressed with large sample sizes that are unlikely to be accrued in any one hospital. However, to utilize administrative databases for this purpose, the diagnostic codes must be sufficiently accurate to detect patients with the condition of interest. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance
Conflict of interest
The current study was unfunded. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
Funding sources
Nick Daneman is supported by a clinician scientist salary award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Disclosures
None.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Divisions of Infectious Diseases, Cardiology, Cardiac Surgery and Neurology, and the Department of Critical Care Medicine, for enabling our multi-disciplinary case conferencing quality improvement initiative for patients with infective endocarditis. This validation study was nested within this quality improvement initiative.
References (20)
- et al.
Trends in hospitalization rates and outcomes of endocarditis among Medicare beneficiaries
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2013) - et al.
Trends in infective endocarditis incidence, microbiology, and valve replacement in the United States from 2000 to 2011
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2015) - et al.
Incidence of infective endocarditis in England, 2000–13: a secular trend, interrupted time-series analysis
Lancet
(2015) - et al.
Veteran's affairs hospital discharge databases coded serious bacterial infections accurately
J. Clin. Epidemiol.
(2007) - et al.
Development and use of reporting guidelines for assessing the quality of validation studies of health administrative data
J. Clin. Epidemiol.
(2011) - et al.
Clinical practice. Infective endocarditis
N. Engl. J. Med.
(2013) - et al.
Preeminence of Staphylococcus aureus in infective endocarditis: a 1-year population-based survey
Clin. Infect. Dis.
(2012) - et al.
Clinical presentation, etiology, and outcome of infective endocarditis in the 21st century: the International Collaboration on Endocarditis-Prospective Cohort Study
Arch. Intern. Med.
(2009) - et al.
Complicated infective endocarditis necessitating ICU admission: clinical course and prognosis
Crit. Care
(2002) - et al.
Outpatient treatment of infective endocarditis
Clin. Microbiol. Infect.
(1998)
Cited by (43)
Trends in epidemiology, surgical management, and prognosis of infective endocarditis during the XXI century in Spain: A population-based nationwide study
2024, Journal of Infection and Public HealthUpdated estimates for the burden of chronic limb-threatening ischemia in the Medicare population
2023, Journal of Vascular SurgeryOpioid Use Disorder Increases Readmissions After Cardiac Surgery: A Call to Action
2022, Annals of Thoracic SurgeryAntibiotic Prophylaxis Against Infective Endocarditis Before Invasive Dental Procedures
2022, Journal of the American College of CardiologySex differences in health resource utilization, costs and mortality during hospitalization for infective endocarditis in the United States
2021, American Heart Journal Plus: Cardiology Research and PracticeClinical and Economic Burden of Hospitalizations for Infective Endocarditis in the United States
2020, Mayo Clinic Proceedings
- 1
This author takes responsibility for all aspects of the reliability and freedom from bias of the data presented and their discussed interpretation.
- 2
Contributed equally to supervision of this study and shares senior authorship.