Response by Zghaib Et Al to Letter Regarding Article, "standard Ablation Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Ablation in the Treatment of Ventricular Tachycardia".

In Response:We thank Penela et al for their comments and congratulate them for their achievements and unique work in the field.Starting in 2005, our group, as well as others, described the utility of cardiac magnetic resonance for ventricular tachycardia substrate identification in the setting of structural heart disease, 1-3 and the utility of cardiac magnetic resonance as an adjunct for electroanatomical mapping during ventricular tachycardia ablation. 4,5Penela et al cite several distinctive articles by their group that describe the technique and utility of cardiac magnetic resonancescar integration for ventricular tachycardia ablation.7][8] The most recent article cited in the Penela et al letter does indeed compare acute and long-term follow-up outcomes of the 54 patients in whom the ablation was aided by cardiac magnetic resonance to outcomes of the remaining 105 patients. 9However, since it was published in August 2017, after the submission of our article on June 27, 2017, 10 neither us nor the reviewers could have known about the study.We admire the study from the Universitat de Barcelona Cardiovascular Institute and look forward to future advances and novel findings reported by their group.