TY - JOUR
T1 - Consensus Current Procedural Terminology Code Definition of Source Control for Sepsis
AU - Li, Shimena R.
AU - Handzel, Robert M.
AU - Tonetti, Daniel
AU - Kennedy, Jason
AU - Shapiro, Katherine
AU - Rosengart, Matthew R.
AU - Hall, Daniel E.
AU - Seymour, Christopher
AU - Tzeng, Edith
AU - Reitz, Katherine M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2022/7
Y1 - 2022/7
N2 - Introduction: Unlike antibiotic and perfusion support, guidelines for sepsis source control lack high-quality evidence and are ungraded. Internally valid administrative data methods are needed to identify cases representing source control procedures to evaluate outcomes. Methods: Over five modified Delphi rounds, two independent reviewers identified Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes pertinent to source control. In each round, codes with perfect agreement were retained or excluded, whereas disagreements were reviewed by the panelists. Manual review of 400 patient records meeting Sepsis-3 criteria (2010-2017) clinically adjudicated which encounters included source control procedures (gold standard). The performance of consensus codes was compared with the gold standard to assess sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios. Results: Of 5752 CPT codes, 609 consensus codes represented source control procedures. Of 400 hospitalizations for sepsis, 39 (9.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.0%-13.1%) underwent gold standard source control procedures and 29 (7.3%; 95% CI 4.9-10.3%) consensus code–defined source control procedures. Thirty consensus codes were identified (20.0% gastrointestinal/intraabdominal, 10.0% genitourinary, 13.3% hepatopancreatobiliary, 23.3% orthopedic/cranial, 23.3% soft tissue, and 10.0% intrathoracic), which had 61.5% (95% CI 44.6%-76.6%) sensitivity, 98.6% (95% CI 96.8%-99.6%) specificity, 83.2% (95% CI 66.6%-92.4%) positive, and 95.9% (95% CI 93.9%-97.2%) negative predictive values. With pretest probability at sample prevalence, an identified consensus code had a posttest probability of 83.0% (95% CI 66.0%-92.0%), whereas consensus code absence had a probability of 4.0% (95% CI 3.0-6.0) for undergoing a source control procedure. Conclusions: Using modified Delphi methodology, we created and validated CPT codes identifying source control procedures, providing a framework for evaluation of the surgical care of patients with sepsis.
AB - Introduction: Unlike antibiotic and perfusion support, guidelines for sepsis source control lack high-quality evidence and are ungraded. Internally valid administrative data methods are needed to identify cases representing source control procedures to evaluate outcomes. Methods: Over five modified Delphi rounds, two independent reviewers identified Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes pertinent to source control. In each round, codes with perfect agreement were retained or excluded, whereas disagreements were reviewed by the panelists. Manual review of 400 patient records meeting Sepsis-3 criteria (2010-2017) clinically adjudicated which encounters included source control procedures (gold standard). The performance of consensus codes was compared with the gold standard to assess sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios. Results: Of 5752 CPT codes, 609 consensus codes represented source control procedures. Of 400 hospitalizations for sepsis, 39 (9.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.0%-13.1%) underwent gold standard source control procedures and 29 (7.3%; 95% CI 4.9-10.3%) consensus code–defined source control procedures. Thirty consensus codes were identified (20.0% gastrointestinal/intraabdominal, 10.0% genitourinary, 13.3% hepatopancreatobiliary, 23.3% orthopedic/cranial, 23.3% soft tissue, and 10.0% intrathoracic), which had 61.5% (95% CI 44.6%-76.6%) sensitivity, 98.6% (95% CI 96.8%-99.6%) specificity, 83.2% (95% CI 66.6%-92.4%) positive, and 95.9% (95% CI 93.9%-97.2%) negative predictive values. With pretest probability at sample prevalence, an identified consensus code had a posttest probability of 83.0% (95% CI 66.0%-92.0%), whereas consensus code absence had a probability of 4.0% (95% CI 3.0-6.0) for undergoing a source control procedure. Conclusions: Using modified Delphi methodology, we created and validated CPT codes identifying source control procedures, providing a framework for evaluation of the surgical care of patients with sepsis.
KW - Modified Delphi
KW - Sepsis
KW - Septic shock
KW - Source control
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85126578971&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jss.2022.02.036
DO - 10.1016/j.jss.2022.02.036
M3 - Article
C2 - 35325636
AN - SCOPUS:85126578971
SN - 0022-4804
VL - 275
SP - 327
EP - 335
JO - Journal of Surgical Research
JF - Journal of Surgical Research
ER -