Dear Editor,

We appreciate the comments by Zorlu et al. on our recently published article [1]. Their observations provide an opportunity to further clarify the design, scope, and implications of our work. Below, we address each point in detail.

• 1.
  Patient selection
  The purpose of our study was to identify STEMI patients who, after low-trauma mechanical reperfusion with TIMI 3 flow, complete ST-segment resolution, and symptom relief, could be safely managed with a deferred stent-free strategy. This highly selective process—based on deliberate clinical judgment—is not comparable to randomized trials in unselected populations, such as DANAMI-3 DEFER [2]. Our sample was specifically enriched with patients most likely to avoid stenting.
• 2.
  Reperfusion criteria and microvascular assessment
  Our aim was not to replicate prior protocols but to address a specific question: what characteristics defined the DANAMI-3 patients who ultimately received no stent? To this end, we used ST-segment resolution, TIMI flow, and symptom relief as sufficient indicators of effective reperfusion [3]. Evaluation of microvascular dynamics on day 5 post-PCI was included in the original design, but the COVID-19 pandemic prevented completion of this arm in all patients. Nevertheless, we published a case report from this cohort describing our methodology and the physiological rationale for considering that most reversible microvascular dysfunction has resolved by day 5 [4].