The description for 93455 and 93457 are exactly same.
40756911
93455
Catheter placement in coronary artery(s) for coronary angiography, including intraprocedural injection(s) for coronary angiography, imaging supervision and interpretation; with catheter placement(s) in bypass graft(s) (internal mammary, free arterial, ven
CPT4
Standard
Valid
Procedure
CPT4
40757138
93457
Catheter placement in coronary artery(s) for coronary angiography, including intraprocedural injection(s) for coronary angiography, imaging supervision and interpretation; with catheter placement(s) in bypass graft(s) (internal mammary, free arterial, ven
It seems like 93457 should be corrected.
93455 Coronary angiography with bypass grafts
93457 Coronary angiography and bypass grafts, with right heart catheterization
Catheter placement in coronary artery(s) for coronary angiography, including intraprocedural injection(s) for coronary angiography, imaging supervision and interpretation; with left heart catheterization including intraprocedural injection(s) for left ven
CPT4
Standard
Valid
Procedure
CPT4
40756979
93459
Catheter placement in coronary artery(s) for coronary angiography, including intraprocedural injection(s) for coronary angiography, imaging supervision and interpretation; with left heart catheterization including intraprocedural injection(s) for left ven
@shinjinaka true story. This situation happens from time to time due to concept table restrictions: concept_name is restricted to be 255 symbols max. Concepts with bigger names are cut to 255 and the full names go to a concept_synonym table with a maximum of 1000 symbols per concept name.
You can see full names if you click on the concept in Athena:
@zhuk Thanks for explaining this.
That is make sense why some of the concept_name for CPT4 codes seems cut off.
I will use the concept_synonym table to get the full names.
Good idea. We do that for RxNorm Extension (using …). We should do it for them all. Can you add, @mik?
Yeah. We made the conscious decision of not using them, because they are pretty unintelligible if you are not into LOINC on a day-to-day basis. Downside of course is the long descriptions. But to be honest: The ones which are a long descriptions are funny anyway from a analytical perspective.