Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 4, 2026

Upper-extremity Approach for Secondary Access in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation
Published on: August 8, 2025
Comparison of Clinical Trials and Administrative Claims to Identify Stroke Among Patients Undergoing Aortic Valve
Jordan B Strom1,2,3, Yuansong Zhao1,2,3, Kamil F Faridi1,2,3
1The Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology (J.B.S., Y.Z., K.F.F., H.T., L.R.V., C.S., R.W.Y.).
Insights
Billing claims can identify cerebrovascular events (CVEs) after aortic valve replacement with high accuracy. While imperfect sensitivity limits their use alone, high specificity suggests claims can aid in evaluating neurological events and improving trial efficiency.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Surgery
- Clinical Trials
- Health Informatics
Background:
- Cerebrovascular events (CVEs) are significant complications following aortic valve replacement (AVR).
- Accurate identification of CVEs is crucial for evaluating interventions in structural heart disease trials.
- This study investigates the utility of billing claims for CVE detection in clinical trials.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the accuracy of billing claims in identifying CVEs compared to clinical adjudication in AVR trials.
- To determine the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes for CVE detection.
- To evaluate the potential role of claims data in improving the efficiency of clinical trials for AVR.
Main Methods:
- Adult participants from the US CoreValve High Risk and SURTAVI trials were linked to Medicare inpatient claims (2006-2016).
- CVEs identified by billing codes were matched against trial-adjudicated CVEs within 14 days.
- Performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV) of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes were calculated against the criterion standard.
Main Results:
- Among 4230 linked participants, 630 CVEs occurred over 5 years.
- An ICD-9-CM algorithm using 4 codes showed 60.9% sensitivity and 99.0% specificity for ischemic stroke.
- An ICD-10-CM algorithm using 3 codes demonstrated 66.7% sensitivity and 99.4% specificity for ischemic stroke.
Conclusions:
- Billing codes identify approximately half of trial-adjudicated CVEs with high specificity but imperfect sensitivity.
- High specificity suggests claims data can trigger neurological event evaluations, potentially enhancing trial efficiency.
- Claims data may not fully replace traditional adjudication but can supplement event detection in structural heart disease trials.
Background:
Cerebrovascular events (CVEs) are devastating complications after aortic valve replacement. We assessed whether billing claims accurately identify CVEs in place of clinical event adjudication in structural heart disease trials.
Methods:
Adult participants in the US CoreValve High Risk and SURTAVI trials (Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients) were linked to Medicare inpatient claims from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2016. Claims consistent with CVEs within 14 days of a similar trial-adjudicated CVE were considered a match. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of International Classification of Diseases,Ninth andTenthRevisions, Clinical Modification billing codes for cerebrovascular disease were determined against trial-defined CVEs as the criterion standard. Kaplan-Meier estimates of claims-defined versus trial-defined CVEs were compared.
Results:
Among 4230 linked trial participants (linkage rate 79.8%), 550 (13.0%) sustained 630 adjudicated CVEs over a 5-year follow-up period. Linked and nonlinked individuals were similar. An algorithm using 4 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes (434.91, 434.11, 433.11, and 997.02) had a sensitivity of 60.9%, specificity of 99.0%, positive predictive value of 86.5%, and negative predictive value of 95.8% for identifying a trial-adjudicated ischemic stroke. An algorithm using 3 International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes (I63.9, I63.40, I63.49) had a sensitivity of 66.7%, specificity of 99.4%, positive predictive value of 88.9%, and negative predictive value of 97.6%.
Conclusions:
In linked clinical trial and Medicare claims data, 4 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification and 3 International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification billing codes identified half of trial-adjudicated CVEs during follow-up with high specificity and predictive value, but imperfect sensitivity. Although low sensitivity may limit the use of claims to substitute for traditional trial outcomes to identify CVEs, high specificity suggests claims could be used to trigger evaluation of neurological events, potentially improving the efficiency of the evaluation of techniques and devices designed to reduce such events.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Aortic Regurgitation II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Tests
Aneurysm II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Mitral Stenosis II: Clinical features and Diagnostic Tests

