We sincerely appreciate the interest of Núñez Gil et al and their comments concerning our article.1
In our study, the prognostic impact of the pattern of dominance on overall mortality, as well as on the occurrence of reinfarction during follow-up, was adjusted for the location of the infarction (anterior vs other sites) and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (which, to avoid collinearity in the constructed models, was defined as Killip class ≥ II or a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40% for the mortality analysis using the Cox model and as Killip class ≥ II or a left ventricular ejection fraction < 35% for the final multivariate analysis using the competing risks model of Fine and Gray).2
Thus, the prognostic impact and effect size of the coronary dominance pattern on the events death and reinfarction was estimated taking into account the important prognostic factors mentioned by Nuñéz Gil et al. For this reason, we believe that the coronary dominance pattern should be a relevant prognostic factor to be considered in the clinical setting for long-term risk stratification in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.