Dataset Information

Validating Publicly Available Crosswalks for Translating ICD-9 to ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research.

ABSTRACT: Background On October 1, 2015, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services transitioned from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision ( ICD-9) to the ICD, Tenth Revision ( ICD-10) compendium of codes for diagnosis and billing in health care, but translation between the two is often inexact. Here we describe a validated crosswalk to translate ICD-9 codes into ICD-10 codes, with a focus on complications after carotid revascularization and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Methods and Results We devised an 8-step process to derive and validate ICD-10 codes from existing ICD-9 codes. We used publicly available sources, including the General Equivalence Mapping database, to translate ICD-9 codes used in prior work to ICD-10 codes. We defined ICD-10 codes as validated if they were concordant with the initial ICD-9 codes after manual comparison by two physicians. Our primary validation measure was the percent of valid ICD-10 codes out of the total ICD-10 codes obtained during translation. We began with 126 ICD-9 diagnosis codes used for complication identification after carotid revascularization procedures, and 97 ICD-9 codes for complications after endovascular aortic aneurysm procedures. Translation generated 143 ICD-10 codes for carotid revascularization, a 14% increase from the initial 126 codes. Manual comparison demonstrated 98% concordance, with 99% agreement between the reviewers. Similarly, we identified 108 ICD-10 codes for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, an 11% increase from the initial 97 ICD-9 codes. We again noted excellent concordance and agreement (98% and 100%, respectively). Manual review identified 4 ICD-10 codes incorrectly translated from ICD-9 codes for carotid revascularization, and 3 codes incorrectly translated for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Conclusions Algorithms to crosswalk lists of ICD-9 codes to ICD-10 codes can leverage electronic resources to minimize the burden of code translation. However, manual review for code validation may be necessary, with collaboration across institutions for researchers to share their efforts.

SUBMITTER: Columbo JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6501611 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validating Publicly Available Crosswalks for Translating ICD-9 to ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research.

Columbo Jesse A JA Kang Ravinder R Trooboff Spencer W SW Jahn Kristen S KS Martinez Camilo J CJ Moore Kayla O KO Austin Andrea M AM Morden Nancy E NE Brooks Corinne G CG Skinner Jonathan S JS Goodney Philip P PP

Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes 20181001 10

Background On October 1, 2015, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services transitioned from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision ( ICD-9) to the ICD, Tenth Revision ( ICD-10) compendium of codes for diagnosis and billing in health care, but translation between the two is often inexact. Here we describe a validated crosswalk to translate ICD-9 codes into ICD-10 codes, with a focus on complications after carotid revascularization and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. ...[more]

PMID: 30354571

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The phecode system was built upon the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) for phenome-wide association studies (PheWAS) using the electronic health record (EHR). OBJECTIVE:The goal of this paper was to develop and perform an initial evaluation of maps from the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) and the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes to phecodes. METHODS:We mapped ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM codes to phecodes using a number of methods and resources, such as concept relationships and explicit mappings from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Unified Medical Language System, Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics, Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms, and the National Library of Medicine. We assessed the coverage of the maps in two databases: Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) using ICD-10-CM and the UK Biobank (UKBB) using ICD-10. We assessed the fidelity of the ICD-10-CM map in comparison to the gold-standard ICD-9-CM phecode map by investigating phenotype reproducibility and conducting a PheWAS. RESULTS:We mapped >75% of ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM codes to phecodes. Of the unique codes observed in the UKBB (ICD-10) and VUMC (ICD-10-CM) cohorts, >90% were mapped to phecodes. We observed 70-75% reproducibility for chronic diseases and <10% for an acute disease for phenotypes sourced from the ICD-10-CM phecode map. Using the ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM maps, we conducted a PheWAS with a Lipoprotein(a) genetic variant, rs10455872, which replicated two known genotype-phenotype associations with similar effect sizes: coronary atherosclerosis (ICD-9-CM: P<.001; odds ratio (OR) 1.60 [95% CI 1.43-1.80] vs ICD-10-CM: P<.001; OR 1.60 [95% CI 1.43-1.80]) and chronic ischemic heart disease (ICD-9-CM: P<.001; OR 1.56 [95% CI 1.35-1.79] vs ICD-10-CM: P<.001; OR 1.47 [95% CI 1.22-1.77]). CONCLUSIONS:This study introduces the beta versions of ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM to phecode maps that enable researchers to leverage accumulated ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM data for PheWAS in the EHR.

Project description:BackgroundAdministrative healthcare databases are useful and inexpensive tools that can provide a comprehensive assessment of the burden of diseases in terms of major outcomes, such as mortality, hospital readmissions, and use of healthcare resources. However, a crucial issue is the reliability of information gathered. The aim of this study was to validate ICD-9 codes for several major cardiovascular conditions, i.e., acute myocardial infarction (AMI), atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF), and heart failure (HF), in order to use them for epidemiological, outcome, and health services research.MethodsData from the centralised administrative database of the Umbria Region (890,000 residents, located in Central Italy) were considered. Patients with a first hospital discharge for AMI, AF/flutter, and HF, between 2012 and 2014, were identified using ICD-9-CM codes in primary position. A sample of cases and non-cases was randomly selected, and the corresponding medical charts reviewed by specifically trained investigators. For each disease, case ascertainment was based on all clinical, laboratory, and instrumental examinations available in medical charts. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated.ResultsWe reviewed 458 medical charts, 128 for AMI, 127 for AF/flutter, 127 for HF, and 76 of non-cases for each condition. Diagnostic accuracy measures of the original discharge diagnosis were as follows. AMI: sensitivity 98% (95% CI, 94-100%), specificity 91% (95% CI, 83-97%), positive predictive value (PPV) 95% (95% CI, 89-98%), negative predictive value (NPV) 97% (95% CI, 91-100%). AF/flutter: sensitivity 95% (95% CI, 90-98%), specificity 95% (95% CI, 87-99%), PPV 97% (95% CI, 92-99%), NPV 92% (95% CI, 84-97%). HF: sensitivity 96% (95% CI, 91-99%), specificity 90% (95% CI, 81-96%), PPV 94% (95% CI, 88-97%), NPV 93% (95% CI, 85-98%).ConclusionThe case ascertainment for AMI, AF and flutter, and HF, showed a high level of accuracy (≥ 90%). The healthcare administrative database of the Umbria Region can be confidently used for epidemiological, outcome, and health services research.

Project description:Background:The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) Injury Severity Score (ICISS) is a risk adjustment model when injuries are recorded using ICD-9-CM coding. The trauma mortality prediction model (TMPM-ICD9) provides better calibration and discrimination compared with ICISS and injury severity score (ISS). Though TMPM-ICD9 is statistically rigorous, it is not precise enough mathematically and has the tendency to overestimate injury severity. The purpose of this study is to develop a new ICD-10-CM injury model which estimates injury severities for every injury in the ICD-10-CM lexicon by a combination of rigorous statistical probit models and mathematical properties and improves the prediction accuracy. Methods:We developed an injury mortality prediction (IMP-ICDX) using data of 794,098 patients admitted to 738 hospitals in the National Trauma Data Bank from 2015 to 2016. Empiric measures of severity for each of the trauma ICD-10-CM codes were estimated using a weighted median death probability (WMDP) measurement and then used as the basis for IMP-ICDX. ISS (version 2005) and the single worst injury (SWI) model were re-estimated. The performance of each of these models was compared by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC), the Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) statistic, and the Akaike information criterion statistic. Results:IMP-ICDX exhibits significantly better discrimination (AUCIMP-ICDX, 0.893, and 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.887 to 0.898; AUCISS, 0.853, and 95% CI, 0.846 to 0.860; and AUCSWI, 0.886, and 95% CI, 0.881 to 0.892) and calibration (HLIMP-ICDX, 68, and 95% CI, 36 to 98; HLISS, 252, and 95% CI, 191 to 310; and HLSWI, 92, and 95% CI, 53 to 128) compared with ISS and SWI. All models were improved after the extension of age, gender, and injury mechanism, but the augmented IMP-ICDX still dominated ISS and SWI by every performance. Conclusions:The IMP-ICDX has a better discrimination and calibration compared to ISS. Therefore, we believe that IMP-ICDX could be a new viable trauma research assessment method.

Dataset Information

Validating Publicly Available Crosswalks for Translating ICD-9 to ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research.

Publications

Validating Publicly Available Crosswalks for Translating ICD-9 to ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets