In Reply We appreciate Eid et al for their interest in our study1 regarding trends and outcomes on coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT). They mention an error in our article.
Eid et al correctly pointed out our use of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code 427.5 as the primary and secondary diagnoses, instead of as the primary diagnosis only, in our study to create the total population of 1 769 903 patients hospitalized for OHCA. However, these methods have been used in previous well-conducted studies.2- 4 Moreover, the annual incidence of OHCA is approximately 325 000 (VT/VF OHCA: 23%), and 60% of these patients are treated by emergency medical services.5 Therefore, 1 769 903 hospitalized due to OHCA and 407 974 (23.1%) hospitalized due to VT/VF OHCA from 2000 to 2012 would reflect the fair national estimate provided by American Heart Association.
Patel N, Patel NJ, Cohen MG. Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest—Reply. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2(5):580-581. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2016.5788