We thank Dr Angouras for his insightful commentary on our recent publication on severe blood conservation.1 He states that:
Indeed, our original analysis included a comparison of Witness patients propensity-score matched to 322 non-Witness patients who were not transfused. The journal requested that we remove this part of the analysis from the printed article, but some of the material is included in the supplementary online-only content (see eAppendices 1 and 2 and eFigures 1-3 in our original investigation1). Reoperation for bleeding was less (0.3% vs 3.7%; P = .003) in non-Witness nontransfused patients compared with Witness patients (Table). Intensive care unit and postoperative lengths of stay were also slightly shorter and less variable (P = .02). However, other complications and hospital mortality were similar (Table), as were predischarge hematocrit values (Witness vs non-Witness nontransfused patients, 31% [4.6%] vs 31% [4.6%] [P = .70]). Survival of Witness patients was 86%, 69%, 51%, and 34% at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after surgery, respectively, vs 86%, 69%, 52%, and 38% among matched non-Witness nontransfused patients, respectively (P > . 40).