Response to: Strong ion approach in cardiogenic shock: formula and patients.

In our opinion, taking into account also these results, our fi nding that ‘ the SIG approach does not seem to add further information in risk stratifi cation ’ appears to be related not to diff erences in formula computation (as inferred by Gatz), but to the ‘ patients ’. In our opinion, the mechanism(s) underlying cardiogenic shock following STEMI are peculiar, diff erent from those accounting for septic shock. It is, therefore, not surprising that the SIG approach may hold a diff erent clinical role in predicting outcomes. Concluding, the unused third decimal number in our formula, diff erently from the original formula, did not change the main result of our study.