MSA-VT Score for Assessment of Long-Term Prognosis after Electrical Storm Ablation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The study of novel MSA-VT score validation in patients who underwent VT ablation was presented. The study is retrospective in its nature, however sufficient for current conclusions. Moreover, the current paper continues the series from this authors group.
Abstract represents the body of the paper.
Introduction section could be improved. Its recommended to present the scope of the problem of ventricular storm (VS), including definition, epidemiology prognosis and current approaches. Radiofrequent ablation significantly change prognosis in many of these patients, however mortality rate is still high.
Material and methods. Patients characteristics and procedure was well described with links to previous papers. Did the patient population include VS in patients with acute myocardial infarction? Combined endocardial-epicardial ablation were not utilized?
In the endpoint subsection more data about MSA-VT score is required such as number of points ets (move from statistics section). Otherwise, some data should be included into introduction section.
Statistics is good.
Results. Table 1 could include data on MSA-VT score eighter. Table 3 and 4 could be presented is supplementary files.
Was multivariable analysis attempted to be performed?
Figure 1 have to be mentioned in the Result section. Figure 1 A could be moved to the supplementary file. Figure 1 B is the central illustration of the study.
Figure 1n C have to be mentioned in the text. Authors could dichotomize prognosis based on MSA-VT score 3, have to be discussed.
Discussion is good. Limitations section could include combined epi-endocardial ablation.`
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Proofreading is required
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
We wish to thank you for your recommendations and hereby provide a point-by-point response to all of the observations we have received. All of these changes have also been implemented in the main manuscript (with tracked changes function) which we have uploaded in its new version. We have included all the comments and changes to the manuscript in the same letter in order to ease the process of revision. Black font marks the reviewers’ observation and our comments regarding the changes, whereas green font marks the specific changes we have applied to the text. We hope to have met the reviewers’ demands and hope to have improved the manuscript significantly.
Please find the Letter of Response to Reviewers hereby attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. The "Introduction" section should be significantly expanded. In the presented form, the necessary information is missing to understand the problem.
2. Tables 1, 2, 3 are not relevant to the essence of the work. They only overload the manuscript with essentially unnecessary information.
3. The authors should show in more detail the calculation of the proposed new scoring algorithm (MSA-VT). This is not clearly described in the current version of the article.
4. I recommend that the authors compare the algorithms (MSA-VT, RIVA, PAINESD, I-VT) with each other not only by AUC. To construct Kaplan Meier curves for all algorithms and compare them.
5. The Discussion section also requires a broader comparative analysis and interpretation of the results obtained in comparison with other existing data in this area.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
We wish to thank you for your recommendations and hereby provide a point-by-point response to all of the observations we have received. All of these changes have also been implemented in the main manuscript (with tracked changes function) which we have uploaded in its new version. We have included all the comments and changes to the manuscript in the same letter in order to ease the process of revision. Black font marks the reviewers’ observation and our comments regarding the changes, whereas green font marks the specific changes we have applied to the text. We hope to have met the reviewers’ demands and hope to have improved the manuscript significantly.
Please find the Letter of Response to Reviewers hereby attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear authors, I was reviewing with high interest the manuscript entitled "MSA-VT score for assessment of long-term prognosis after electrical storm ablation". You deal with a highly interesting subject and offer a real new score for risk prediction in these patient group. The literature is actual and recent and the discussion deals with all important aspects. However, one issue needs to be solved: The amount of interventions (e.g. sum of energy) per patient needs to be reported. It's a single center data collection and there is no way to compare the sum of applied interventions between different studies. In conclusion, this manuscript adds a new potent score for risk prediction in these patients.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers,
We wish to thank you for your recommendations and hereby provide a point-by-point response to all of the observations we have received. All of these changes have also been implemented in the main manuscript (with tracked changes function) which we have uploaded in its new version. We have included all the comments and changes to the manuscript in the same letter in order to ease the process of revision. Black font marks the reviewers’ observation and our comments regarding the changes, whereas green font marks the specific changes we have applied to the text. We hope to have met the reviewers’ demands and hope to have improved the manuscript significantly.
Please find the Letter of Response to Reviewers hereby attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper was improved substantially. Could be recommended to the Journal after editing.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
We thank you for your observations and we are glad to have adequately implemented your insightful recommendations.
With great respect,
The Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors fixed everything quickly and efficiently. Wonderful!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
We thank you for your observations and we are glad to have adequately implemented your insightful recommendations.
With great respect,
The Authors