We commend the Saarland University Medical Centre group for its consistent effort in trying to identify the biological basis and the eventual biomarkers of nonocclusive mesenteric ischemia (NOMI) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. 1 In fact, the present publication is just the last addition to a very well-defined scientific excursus the authors have developed in the last years. 2,3 It should be emphasized that despite the fact that NOMI carries a heavy burden of mortality, its existence stays poorly acknowledged, and, as an obvious consequence, NOMI often remains unrecognized and untreated.First, in the present study, 1 the authors report a 9% rate of NOMI, based on angiographic and clinical evaluation. This finding underlines the fact that in environments ''tuned up'' for diagnosis and treatment, NOMI occurrence is significantly high when compared with other morbidities often encountered in the perioperative phases of cardiac surgery. It is even more striking that when left untreated, NOMI has a mortality rate of more than 20%. As a consequence, misdiagnosis and mistreatment of this occurrence may increase to 2% the overall mortality rate after cardiac surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass. Per se, this is an important message to the readers.Second, we should reflect on the present tools available for NOMI diagnosis. Postoperative visceral angiography cannot be accepted, because of its invasiveness, as a standard for diagnosis. For this reason, in the near future, we should aim at ''less-invasive'' tools, including endothelin (ET)-1 sampling. In this context, we should review critically review the authors' findings. 1 Their receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses of preoperative ET-1 serum levels and the occurrence of NOMI revealed an optimal cutoff value of 11.7 pg/mL with a sensitivity of 44% and a specificity of 85%. ROC analyses of postoperative ET-1 serum levels showed an optimal cutoff value of 14.5 pg/mL with a sensitivity of 51% and a specificity of 94%. Such a test sensitivity implies that if we were to make our diagnosis just on the basis of ET-1 sampling, we would fail to correctly diagnose NOMI in at least 1 of 2 patients (false-negative). Of note, even in the authors' practice, 1 ''ET-1 is not presently used as a routine stratification tool due to the fact, that this is not a routine laboratory value and therefore cannot be provided in daily care.'' Third, although we understand that Groesdonk and colleagues 1 are scientifically trying to identify a specific and independent determinant for NOMI, some realistic caution should be advised. ET-1 could be just one of the many markers and mediators increasing after cardiopulmonary bypass and being involved in the ischemic-reperfusion cascade. In this context, the same group recently proposed that there is also an association between serum procalcitonin levels and NOMI. 4 In the same observational cohort study of 865 patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery, ROC analyses showed that elevated serum procalcitonin levels accurately predicted the...