Response to the Letter to the Editor: “The correct number of double right coronary artery reported in the literature”

Abstract

We would like to respond to the letter written by Sari et al regarding the correct number of published double right coronary artery (RCA) cases [1]. Our case [2] was presented as the second case who had an RCA with separate orifices according to the letter reported by Harikrishnan et al. in 2001 [3]. The case report entitled “Supernumerary right coronary artery” by Gupta et al was published in 1987 and was cited only by Lemburg et al. in 2007 [4] which was unavailable to us at the moment we have submitted the letter. Unfortunately, we could not see any citation of this article by Gupta et al in any of the previously reported cases about double RCA till October 2006, including the letter by Sari et al. published in 2006 [5]. The 3 cases reported by Kunimasa et al. and Lemburg et al. were published in 2007 [4,6] which were also not available for us to cite, since we have submitted our letter in October 2006. Also we observe conflict of data in the table summarizing the cases by year of publication by Sari et al. [5]. The cases presented by Lemburg and Kunimasa were shown to be published in 2006, whereas the articles were published in 2007 [4,6]. In addition, our case had been submitted in October 2006, whereas it was indexed in the table as 2007 by Sari et al. Although online publications serve for faster spread of knowledge it could not always be possible for the readers to review after full publication. The possibility of cases reported in journals not available to be reviewed globally could also change the real number of published cases of double RCA. We agree with the statement about importance of comprehensive literature search. Another crucial issue is to be objective and unbiased, without any conflicts in presented data. In conclusion double RCA is a rare coronary abnormality and awareness is recommended during coronary angiography.