Scholarlink

<p>We thank the authors for their interest in our work and their valuable comments. Our response addresses three main points. First, we clarify that the method we presented, deriving mean systemic filling pressure (MSFP) from cardiac power, is a simplification of the Parkin formula. This formula has been validated in both experimental and clinical studies, and we have confirmed its correlation with our approach across different populations. Second, we emphasize the advantage of our method over the Parkin approach: it does not require patient-specific variables such as age, weight, or height, nor does it rely on the assumption of a constant venous-to-arterial compliance ratio (Cv/Ca) of 25:1, which may not always apply. Finally, we identify a critical inconsistency in the authors’ simulation model, which yields physiologically impossible values, with venous return resistance exceeding total systemic resistance. This issue highlights the need for further reevaluation.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

In response to the comment on a “Presentation of a novel method to estimate analog mean systemic filling pressure based on cardiac power”

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月23日

查看全文
  • Enrique Monares-Zepeda,
  • Christopher Barrera-Hoffmann,
  • Ulises Wilfrido Cerón-Díaz,
  • Yesica Ivone Martínez-Baltazar

摘要

We thank the authors for their interest in our work and their valuable comments. Our response addresses three main points. First, we clarify that the method we presented, deriving mean systemic filling pressure (MSFP) from cardiac power, is a simplification of the Parkin formula. This formula has been validated in both experimental and clinical studies, and we have confirmed its correlation with our approach across different populations. Second, we emphasize the advantage of our method over the Parkin approach: it does not require patient-specific variables such as age, weight, or height, nor does it rely on the assumption of a constant venous-to-arterial compliance ratio (Cv/Ca) of 25:1, which may not always apply. Finally, we identify a critical inconsistency in the authors’ simulation model, which yields physiologically impossible values, with venous return resistance exceeding total systemic resistance. This issue highlights the need for further reevaluation.