Utilidad de los diagnósticos alertantes CIE-10 para identificar acontecimientos adversos por los medicamentos en los servicios de urgencias / Usefulness of ICD-10 diagnosis triggers to identify adverse drug events in emergency care

Objetivos: Evaluar la utilidad de una herramienta basada en los códigos diagnósticos CIE-10 para identificar a los pacientes que consultan a un servicio de urgencias por acontecimientos adversos por medicamentos (AAM). Métodos: Estudio observacional prospectivo, en el cual se incluyeron los pacientes que acudieron a un servicio de urgencias durante el periodo de mayo-agosto de 2022 con un diagnóstico codificado con alguno de los 27 diagnósticos CIE-10 establecidos como alertantes para el estudio. La confirmación de la presencia de AAM a partir de dichos diagnósticos se realizó analizando los fármacos prescritos previamente al ingreso, a través de un debate entre expertos y mediante una entrevista telefónica con los pacientes. Resultados: Se evaluaron 1.143 pacientes con diagnósticos alertantes, de los cuales 310 (27,1%) correspondieron a pacientes cuya consulta se atribuyó a un AAM. El 58,4% de los AAM se detectaron mediante 3 códigos diagnósticos: K59.0-Estreñimiento (n = 87; 28,1%), I16.9-Crisis hipertensiva (n = 72; 23,2%) e I95.1-Hipotensión ortostática (n = 22; 7,1%). Los códigos diagnósticos con mayor grado de asociación con AAM fueron: E16.2-Hipoglucemia no especificada (73,7%) y E11.65-Diabetes mellitus tipo 2 con hiperglucemia (71,4%), mientras que los diagnósticos D62-Anemia poshemorrágica aguda e I74.3-Embolia y trombosis de arterias de los miembros inferiores no identificaron ningún AAM. Conclusiones: Los códigos CIE-10 asociados a diagnósticos alertantes son una herramienta de utilidad para identificar a los pacientes que consultan los servicios de urgencias por AAM y podrían ser utilizados para abordar las intervenciones de prevención secundaria dirigidas a evitar nuevas consultas al sistema sanitario. (AU)

Objectives: To assess the usefulness of a tool based on ICD-10 diagnostic codes to identify patients who consult an emergency department for adverse drug events (ADE). Methods: Prospective observational study, in which patients discharged from an emergency department during May to August 2022 with a diagnosis coded with one of the 27 ICD-10 diagnoses considered as triggers were included. ADE confirmation was carried out by analyzing drugs prescribed prior to admission, and through a discussion among experts and a phone interview with patients after hospital discharge. Results: 1,143 patients with trigger diagnoses were evaluated, of which 310 (27.1%) corresponded to patients whose emergency visit was attributed to an ADE. A 58.4% of ADE consultations were found with three diagnostic codes: K59.0-Constipation (n = 87; 28.1%), I16.9-Hypertensive Crisis (n = 72; 23.2%) and I95.1-Orthostatic hypotension (n = 22; 7.1%). The diagnoses with the highest degree of association with consultations attributed to ADE were E16.2-Hypoglycemia, unspecified (73.7%) and E11.65-Type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia (71.4%), while diagnoses D62-Acute posthemorrhagic anemia and I74.3-Embolism and thrombosis of arteries of the lower limbs were not attributed to any case of ADE. Conclusions: The ICD-10 codes associated with trigger diagnoses are a useful tool to identify patients who consult the emergency services with ADE and could be used to apply secondary prevention programs to avoid new consultations to the health care system. (AU)

[Translated article] Usefulness of ICD-10 diagnostic triggers to identify adverse drug events in emergency care.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the usefulness of a tool based on ICD-10 diagnostic codes to identify patients who consult an emergency department for adverse drug events (ADE). METHODS: Prospective observational study, in which patients discharged from an emergency department during May to August 2022 with a diagnosis coded with one of the 27 ICD-10 diagnoses considered as triggers were included. ADE confirmation was carried out by analyzing drugs prescribed prior to admission, and through a discussion among experts and a phone interview with patients after hospital discharge. RESULTS: 1143 patients with trigger diagnoses were evaluated, of which 310 (27.1%) corresponded to patients whose emergency visit was attributed to an ADE. A 58.4% of ADE consultations were found with three diagnostic codes: K59.0-Constipation (n = 87; 28.1%), I16.9-Hypertensive Crisis (n = 72; 23.2%) and I95.1-Orthostatic hypotension (n = 22; 7.1%). The diagnoses with the highest degree of association with consultations attributed to ADE were E16.2-Hypoglycemia, unspecified (73.7%) and E11.65-Type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia (71.4%), while diagnoses D62-Acute posthemorrhagic anemia and I74.3-Embolism and thrombosis of arteries of the lower limbs were not attributed to any case of ADE. CONCLUSIONS: The ICD-10 codes associated with trigger diagnoses are a useful tool to identify patients who consult the emergency services with ADE and could be used to apply secondary prevention programs to avoid new consultations to the health care system.