Response to: Comment on “Effect of Riociguat and Sildenafil on Right Heart Remodeling and Function in Pressure Overload Induced Model of Pulmonary Arterial Banding”

• Published in: BioMed research international Vol. 2018; no. 2018; pp. 1 - 2
• Main Authors: Seeger, Werner, Schermuly, Ralph Theo, Novoyatleva, Tatyana, Stasch, Johannes-Peter, Weissmann, Norbert, Kojonazarov, Baktybek, Wietelmann, Astrid, Janssen, Wiebke, Schymura, Yves, Veeroju, Swathi, Rai, Nabham, Ghofrani, Ardeschir
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cairo, Egypt Hindawi Publishing Corporation 01-01-2018; Hindawi; John Wiley & Sons, Inc; Hindawi Limited
• Subjects: Banding; Blood pressure; Design of experiments; Dosage; Experimental design; Guanylate cyclase; Heart; Hypertension; Hypertrophy; Letter to the Editor; Monocrotaline; Mortality; Pharmacology; Phosphodiesterase; Pulmonary arteries; Pulmonary artery; Pulmonary hypertension; Rats; Sildenafil; Stroke; Ventricle; Germany
• ISSN: 2314-6133; 2314-6141
• DOI: 10.1155/2018/7491284

We would like to thank Dr. Andersen for careful reading and the comment [1] on the manuscript “Effect of Riociguat and Sildenafil on Right Heart Remodeling and Function in Pressure Overload Induced Model of Pulmonary Arterial Banding” by Rai et al. [2]. As described in our manuscript, data like stroke volume (SV) or ejection fraction (EF) are calculated from the individual end diastolic and systolic volumes (paired analysis). However, we recalculated the stroke volume and the ejection fraction and identified an error in values for the end systolic volumes (ESV) of the animals treated with riociguat, which explains the difference in the stroke volume that has been found. We identified that two numbers were mistakenly entered in the calculation of the mean ESV value of the riociguat group. This resulted in the mean ESV value of 24.7 ± 10.1μl which was given in the manuscript. The corrected mean ESV value for riociguat is 20.3 ± 7.4μl (if these 2 numbers are not included) (Figure 1(d)). Further, the calculation of SV and EF included mistakes in the excel file that has been used for the generation of the graphs and the statistics in Graphpad Prism. Based on the given EDV and ESV values, we recalculated the SV and the EF and found some changes which we would like to correct. The SV of the riociguat group changed to 23.7 ± 5.8% (reported value 28.5 ± 7.3%) and of the EF to 54.3% ± 11.4% (reported value 57.6 ± 8.6%). The SV of the placebo group changed to 24.9 ± 7.4μl (reported value: 24.2 ± 7.3μl) and the EF to 32.4 ± 11.1% (reported value: 30.0 ± 9.5%). The SV of the sildenafil group changed to 26.0 ± 3.7μl (reported value: 25.9 ± 3.6μl) and the EF to 43.8 ± 7.4% (reported value: 44.9 ± 4.9%). There were no changes in the Sham group (Figures 1(e) and 1(f)). There is no change in the interpretation and the conclusions drawn from the results [2].