Introduction: The diagnosis of acute myocarditis (AM) is complex due to its heterogeneity and typically is defined by either Electronic Healthcare Records (EHRs) or advanced imaging and endomyocardial biopsy, but there is no consensus. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of these approaches for AM.
Methods: Data on ICD 10th Revision(ICD-10) codes corresponding to AM were collected from two hospitals and compared to CMR-confirmed or clinically suspected(CS) AM cases with respect to diagnostic accuracy, clinical characteristics, and all-cause mortality. Next, we performed a review of published AM studies according to inclusion criteria.
Results: We identified 291 unique admissions with ICD-10 codes corresponding to AM in the first three diagnostic positions. The positive predictive value(PPV) of ICD-10 codes for CMR-confirmed or CS-AM was 36%, and patients with CMR-confirmed or CS AM had a lower all-cause mortality than those with a refuted diagnosis (P = 0.019). Using an unstructured approach, patients with CMR-confirmed and CS AM had similar demographics, comorbidity profiles and survival over a median follow-up of 52 months (P = 0.72). Our review of the literature confirmed our findings. Outcomes for patients included in studies using CMR-confirmed criteria were favourable compared to studies with EMB-confirmed AM cases.
Conclusion: ICD-10 codes have poor accuracy in identification of AM cases and should be used with caution in clinical research. There are important differences in management and outcomes of patients according to the selection criteria used to diagnose AM. Potential selection biases must be considered when interpreting AM cohorts and requires standardisation of inclusion criteria for AM studies.
Keywords: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging; Diagnosis; Endomyocardial biopsy; ICD codes; Myocarditis.
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.