Author + information
- Spyridon Deftereos, MD and
- Georgios Giannopoulos, MD∗ ()
- ↵∗Cardiology Department, Athens General Hospital “G. Gennimatas”, 154 Mesogeion Avenue, Athens 11527, Greece
We thank Drs. Liu and Xu for their letter commenting on our paper (1). However, we are a little confused as to exactly how it relates to our study. All the publications cited by Drs. Liu and Xu and the presented arguments pertain to conditioning for cardioprotection. Ours was a paper on renoprotection, which is something different in almost every respect; for example, we cannot really see how Liu's argument that “prolongation of delay from 10 to 30 seconds to 60 seconds or 10 minutes has been indicated to result in the failure of cardioprotection by postconditioning in animal studies” relates to the findings of our study regarding renal function. Even if we do change the subject altogether and embark on a discussion regarding postconditioning for cardioprotection (which has nothing to do with the essence of our paper), the bitter truth is that no definitive evidence has been produced to issue a verdict about its efficacy in reducing reperfusion damage, let alone about the best conditioning protocol, in terms of timing, mode, and sequence of the ischemia–reperfusion stimulus. We also do not understand what the purported “missing information” is regarding the description of the protocol applied in our study. We believe that our published paper describes the site, timing, and mode of the conditioning procedure with clarity. We cannot see how a discussion on technical details about how different aspects of the protocol could affect cardioprotection could fit in a paper dedicated to the protection of renal function, especially considering that no outcomes or surrogate markers regarding myocardial damage were evaluated in the context of our study.
- American College of Cardiology Foundation