Accuracy of Administrative Codes for Distinguishing Positive Pressure Ventilation From High-Flow Nasal Cannula.

Objectives: Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is increasingly used in critically ill pediatric patients, despite limited data on safety and efficacy. Administrative data may be a good resource for observational studies. Therefore, we sought to assess the performance of the procedure code for NIPPV.

Methods: Patients admitted to the PICU requiring NIPPV or heated high-flow nasal cannula (HHFNC) over the 11-month study period were identified from the Virtual PICU System database. The gold standard was manual review of the electronic health record to verify the use of NIPPV or HHFNC among the cohort. The presence or absence of a NIPPV procedure code was determined by using administrative data. Test characteristics with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated, comparing administrative data with the gold standard.

Results: Among the cohort ( = 562), the majority were younger than 5 years, and the most common primary diagnosis was bronchiolitis. Most (82%) required NIPPV, whereas 18% required only HHFNC. The NIPPV code had a sensitivity of 91.1% (95% CI: 88.2%-93.6%) and a specificity of 57.6% (95% CI: 47.2%-67.5%), with a positive likelihood ratio of 2.15 (95% CI: 1.70-2.71) and negative likelihood ratio of 0.15 (95% CI: 0.11-0.22).

Conclusions: Among our critically ill pediatric cohort, NIPPV procedure codes had high sensitivity but only moderate specificity. On the basis of our study results, there is a risk of misclassification, specifically failure to identify children who require NIPPV, when using administrative data to study the use of NIPPV in this population.