# Renals



## Cindygau (Apr 9, 2013)

III.  SELECTIVE BILATERAL RENAL ANGIOGRAPHY:                                   

 	      A.    LEFT RENAL ARTERY:  Single and angiographically                    
 	            normal.                                                            

 	      B.    RIGHT RENAL ARTERY:  The superior branch has a 50%                 
 	            re-stenosis where an 8.0 x 26 mm Paramount stent was               
 	            placed on 3/2/04.  There is, however, no pressure                  
 	            gradient.  The right inferior renal artery has a                   

How would this be coded. 

36253, 36252-59 or 36253 only.

Thank you for your help.


----------



## ilovemyboys777@yahoo.com (Apr 9, 2013)

36252 bilateral cath placement renals

if stent was placed on same day then this is what i would bill
36251 unilateral renal angiography for the LT
37205 RT Initial vessel stent
75960 S&I


----------



## j.monday7814 (Apr 9, 2013)

it doesn't look like stent was placed same day, so I would say 36253 w/ 36251...that's a tough one though.

although if it was stented the same day then 37205 w/ 36252 and 75960 since there aren't any NCCI edits for billing the diagnostic renal with the stent on the same DOS.


----------



## Cindygau (Apr 9, 2013)

jeremym@pimaheart.com said:


> it doesn't look like stent was placed same day, so I would say 36253 w/ 36251...that's a tough one though.
> 
> although if it was stented the same day then 37205 w/ 36252 and 75960 since there aren't any NCCI edits for billing the diagnostic renal with the stent on the same DOS.



There were no stents.


----------



## Cindygau (Apr 9, 2013)

ilovemyboys777@yahoo.com said:


> 36252 bilateral cath placement renals
> 
> if stent was placed on same day then this is what i would bill
> 36251 unilateral renal angiography for the LT
> ...



There were no stents.


----------



## ilovemyboys777@yahoo.com (Apr 9, 2013)

Then i would bill 36252


----------



## dpeoples (Apr 9, 2013)

ilovemyboys777@yahoo.com said:


> Then i would bill 36252





I agree. There is no indication that this was superselective. An interpretation of higher order vessels does not mean they were selected. It has to be documented as superselective.

HTH


----------



## theresa.dix@tennova.com (Apr 12, 2013)

dpeoples said:


> I agree. There is no indication that this was superselective. An interpretation of higher order vessels does not mean they were selected. It has to be documented as superselective.
> 
> HTH



Yes and I agree with Danny.


----------

