Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 12, 2025

Cutoff Value of Phase Angle by Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis at Admission as a Prognostic Factor in Patients with Acute Heart Failure
Published on: June 10, 2025
Performance of Electronic Health Record Diagnosis Codes for Ambulatory Heart Failure Encounters
Parag Goyal1, Budhaditya Bose2, Ruth Masterson Creber2
1Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY; Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
Background:
There is interest in leveraging the electronic medical records (EMRs) to improve knowledge and understanding of patients' characteristics and outcomes of patients with ambulatory heart failure (HF). However, the diagnostic performance of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) -10 diagnosis codes from the EMRs for patients with HF and with reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF or HFpEF) in the ambulatory setting are unknown.
Methods:
We examined a cohort of patients aged ≥ 18 with at least 1 outpatient encounter for HF between January 2016 and June 2018 and an echocardiogram conducted within 180 days of the outpatient encounter for HF. We defined HFrEF encounters as those with ICD-10 codes of I50.2x (systolic heart failure); and we defined HFpEF encounters as those with ICD-10 codes of I50.3x (diastolic heart failure). The referent definitions of HFrEF and HFpEF were based on echocardiograms conducted within 180 days of the ambulatory encounter for HF RESULTS: We examined 68,952 encounters of 14,796 unique patients with HF. The diagnostic performance parameters for HFrEF (based on ICD-10 I50.2x only) depended on LVEF cutoff, with a sensitivity ranging from 68%-72%, specificity 63%-68%, positive predictive value 47%-63%, and negative predictive value 73%-84%. The diagnostic performance parameters for HFpEF depended on left ventricular ejection fraction cut-off, with sensitivity ranging from 34%-39%, specificity 92%-94%, positive predictive value 86%-93%, and negative predictive value 39%-54%.
Conclusions:
ICD-10 coding abstracted from the EMR for HFrEF vs HFpEF in the ambulatory setting had suboptimal diagnostic performance and, thus, should not be used alone to examine HFrEF and HFpEF in the ambulatory setting.
More Related Videos
03:47Author Spotlight: Workflow for Integrating POCUS Data into EHR for Managing Heart Failure Patients
Published on: July 12, 2024
06:55Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure IV: Classification and Diagnostic Evaluation
Methods of Documentation VII: EMR
Dysrhythmias V: Evaluating Dysrhythmias
Pulse rhythm
Conversely, an irregular pulse pattern is termed dysrhythmia, stemming from disruptions in cardiac...
Holter Monitor: 24-Hour Monitoring
Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies