Abstract MP90: Validity of Hospital Discharge Diagnosis Codes for Stroke: Evaluation of New American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Definitions

Circulation ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 129 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sydney Jones ◽  
Rebecca F Gottesman ◽  
Eyal Shahar ◽  
Lisa Wruck ◽  
Wayne D Rosamond

Background: Characterizing International Classification of Disease (ICD-9) code validity is essential given widespread use of hospital discharge and claims databases in research. Estimates for acute stroke vary depending on the codes investigated. We sought to estimate the validity of ICD-9 codes grouped according to the 2013 American Heart Association/ American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) updated stoke definition and to explore differences by patient characteristics and study site. Methods: Medical records (N=4,260) containing ICD-9 codes 430-438 or stroke keywords in the discharge summary were abstracted for hospitalizations of Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study cohort members from 1987-2010. A computer algorithm and physician reviewer identified definite and probable ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) with differences adjudicated by a second physician. Using ARIC diagnosis as a gold standard, we calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity of groups of ICD-9 codes matched to stroke subtypes by the AHA/ASA (ischemic stroke: 433.01, 433.11, 433.21, 433.31, 433.81, 433.91, 434.01, 434.11, 434.91; ICH: 431; SAH: 430). We excluded codes for spinal and retinal infarcts (336.1, 362.31, 362.32), which were not validated in ARIC (N=3 events). Results: Thirty-three percent of 4,260 hospitalizations were validated as definite or probable strokes (1,251 ischemic, 120 ICH, 46 SAH), and 30% (1,276 of 4,260) of hospitalizations included ICD-9 codes identified by the AHA/ASA. The AHA/ASA code groups had PPV 76% and 68% sensitivity, compared to PPV 40% and 95% sensitivity for ICD-9 codes 430-438 (not 435) traditionally used to identify stroke. For ischemic stroke, AHA/ASA identified ICD-9 codes were present for 1,043 hospitalizations. Among these, PPV was 76% overall and was slightly higher for blacks (80%, N=400) compared to whites (74%, N=643; p=0.04). However, differences by race diminished conditional undergoing a CT scan or MRI (blacks 81%, N=390; whites 78%, N=601). Among whites, PPV for ischemic stroke ranged from 60-79%, and sensitivity ranged from 60-70% across study sites. ICD-9 codes 430-431 for ICH and SAH were present for 225 hospitalizations and had PPV 61%. PPV was higher among blacks (73%, N=89) compared to whites (53%, N=136; p=0.003), and differences by race were not diminished conditional on undergoing a CT scan or MRI. Among whites, PPV for ICH and SAH ranged from 38-60%, and sensitivity ranged from 78-89% across study sites. Conclusion: New AHA/ASA code groups had higher PPV but lower sensitivity for identifying acute stroke than a traditional code group. PPV was higher among blacks compared to whites and both PPV and sensitivity varied by study site. These data may be useful for calibrating estimates of stroke incidence generated from administrative claims data and in sensitivity analyses.

Stroke ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 557-559 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin McDonough Grise ◽  
Opeolu Adeoye ◽  
Christopher Lindsell ◽  
Kathleen Alwell ◽  
Charles Moomaw ◽  
...  

Stroke ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (12) ◽  
pp. 3578-3584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nima Kashani ◽  
Johanna M. Ospel ◽  
Bijoy K. Menon ◽  
Gustavo Saposnik ◽  
Mohammed Almekhlafi ◽  
...  

Background and Purpose— The American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association guidelines for early management of patients with ischemic stroke offer guidance to physicians involved in acute stroke care and clarify endovascular treatment indications. The purpose of this study was to assess concordance of physicians’ endovascular treatment decision-making with current American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association stroke treatment guidelines using a survey-approach and to explore how decision-making in the absence of guideline recommendations is approached. Methods— In an international cross-sectional survey (UNMASK-EVT), physicians were randomly assigned 10 of 22 case scenarios (8 constructed with level 1A and 11 with level 2B evidence for endovascular treatment and 3 scenarios without guideline coverage) and asked to declare their treatment approach (1) under their current local resources and (2) assuming there were no external constraints. The proportion of physicians offering endovascular therapy (EVT) was calculated. Subgroup analysis was performed for different specialties, geographic regions, with regard to physicians’ age, endovascular, and general stroke treatment experience. Results— When facing level 1A evidence, participants decided in favor of EVT in 86.8% under current local resources and in 90.6% under assumed ideal conditions, that is, 9.4% decided against EVT even under assumed ideal conditions. In case scenarios with level 2B evidence, 66.3% decided to proceed with EVT under current local resources and 69.7% under assumed ideal conditions. Conclusions— There is potential for improving thinking around the decision to offer endovascular treatment, since physicians did not offer EVT even under assumed ideal conditions in 9.4% despite facing level 1A evidence. A majority of physicians would offer EVT even for level 2B evidence cases.


Author(s):  
Waldo R. Guerrero ◽  
Edgar A. Samaniego ◽  
Santiago Ortega

The only proven therapy for patients with acute ischemic stroke is early recanalization. The use of intravenous thrombolytic alteplase is the standard of care for patients presenting with ischemic stroke within the first 4.5 hours from symptom onset. This chapter reviews the indications and contraindications to alteplase including the 2015 American Heart Association guidelines and their relevance to clinical practice. Furthermore, emerging research and ongoing trials on expanding the time window for intravenous thrombolysis are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document