@Ajit_Londhe and @ershanno do you have any additional insight on subsequent MI codes. From a pure semantic meaning - this would still be MI but
- if used for first time in persons history it might represent index date misclassification
- if used for cohort definitions where a person may be allowed to enter the cohort many times, it would be acceptable.
For example - i found this previous commentary on this topic Current ICD10 codes are insufficient to clearly distinguish acute myocardial infarction type: a descriptive study - PubMed
In ARES for the Truven CCAE datasource - i see for
Subsequent non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction a pretty stable temporal pattern
There is decline in
Across the OHDSI network the counts are low for the subsequent code - but not insignificant
compared to the full set
Notice: the counts for old MI - they are pretty large compared to the subsequent codes