The Authors’ reply We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the reply to the counterpoint of our editorial.1 ,2 Admittedly, the comments were edgy, but the content was intended to be a scientific exchange regarding the interpretation of the European Society of Cardiology guidelines based on the best available evidence. Our position stems, in part, from a more regional than perhaps international perspective where guidelines are read by lawyers and politicians, who sometimes interpret statements out of context. Our mission was simply to address a prevalent confusion regarding ‘Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI)-related delay’ and point out that in some paragraphs of the comprehensive 2012 European Society of Cardiology ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) guidelines3 ‘PCI-related delay’ seems to be equated with ‘time from First Medical Contact (FMC) to Primary PCI (PPCI) delay’, since data addressing ‘PCI-related delay’ have been used to give recommendations concerning ‘FMC to PPCI delay’. In paragraph 3.5.2 the guidelines3 thoroughly discuss the paper by Pinto and colleagues4 (ref. 41 in the guidelines) and states: “Taking into account the …