Revised: August 14, 2026
Accepted: September 8, 2026
Published online: September 26, 2026
Processing time: 89 Days and 12 Hours
We respond to the editorial of Salimi and Hematpour on our study of mild myocardial injury during percutaneous coronary intervention detected by composite electrocardiography and heart rate variability indices. We agree that these indices must be anchored to an external reference standard, and outline a prospective design using paired high-sensitivity troponin and cardiac magnetic resonance with late gadolinium enhancement, with injury pre-specified by the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. We clarify that the composite indices derive from a predefined hierarchical scaling system normalized against approximately 17000 healthy individuals, whereas the within-cohort clustering is the exploratory step requiring independent validation. We acknowledge that short peri-procedural recordings are sensitive to sedation, pain and autonomic confounders, and endorse a roadmap of larger multicentre cohorts correlating the signal with biomarker kinetics, imaging and clinical out
Core Tip: Composite electrocardiography and heart rate variability indices can flag small post-procedural changes that the routine 12-lead electrocardiogram misses, but they cannot separate injury from recovery unless anchored to an accepted reference standard. In this reply we set out how that anchor — paired high-sensitivity troponin and late gadolinium enhancement on cardiac magnetic resonance, with injury pre-specified by the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction — will be built into a larger, prospective, presentation-stratified study. We distinguish the validated construction of the composite indices from the exploratory within-cohort clustering, which still requires independent validation before any clinical use.