Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Feb;16(2):e009078.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.122.009078. Epub 2023 Jan 23.

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

Affiliations

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

Benjamin A Bates et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2023 Feb.

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.

Keywords: Medicare; heart failure; heart failure, diastolic; heart failure, systolic; hospitalization; predictive value of tests; validation study.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types