We thank Devaux et al 1 for their interest in our work published in a recent issue of Circulation Research. 2 We have carefully read their comments and replied to them.First, we are afraid that there are some misunderstandings about our studies, including the study design. For the first screening in the study, we randomly selected 7 patients who experienced development of heart failure (HF) within a year after discharge from the hospital after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and 7 matched control subjects who did not experience any cardiac events for 2 years after AMI using propensity score, as described in the Supplemental Materials of the original article. 2 In the validation phase, we examined associations between HF development and circulating levels of candidate microRNAs (miRs) selected on the basis of the results of the first screening in a total of 86 post-AMI patients. Through these processes and additional experiments, we concluded that circulating levels of p53-responsive miRs were increased from the early convalescent stage (median, 18 days after onset) in post-AMI patients who survived the acute stage of AMI but developed HF within a year.2 Devaux et al 1 claimed that our study had a limitation of statistical underpower without any calculation of statistical power of our study. However, if the statistical power was retrospectively calculated on the basis of the results of our study, the estimated sample size was 49 to detect a correlation of 0.35 (or −0.35) using a 1-sided hypothesis test with a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 80%, suggesting that our sample size (n=86) had enough power. Furthermore, it should be understood that the statistical power is the probability of the event of rejecting the null hypothesis in a future study (prospective power) and thus that post hoc (retrospective) calculation of the statistical power is meaningless, particularly once statistical significance is detected, regardless of sample size. 3,4 As for the second comment, we agree with the point that the change in left ventricular diastolic dimension (LVDd) is another important factor to evaluate cardiac remodeling. However, cardiac remodeling should be assessed with several viewpoints. In our study, the absolute values of LVDd and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 1 year were more excellently correlated with the development of HF than the change in LVDd from a median of 18 days after onset to 1 year (area under the receiveroperating characteristic curve [AUC]=0.746, r=0.335, P=0.010 for LVDd at 1 year; AUC=0.688, r=−0.334, P=0.010 for LVEF at 1 year; and AUC=0.679, r=0.236, P=0.086 for the change in LVDd), which was the reason why we showed the association between miR levels and LVDd or LVEF at 1 year but not the change in LVDd in the article.2 Indeed, the association of the change in LVDd with miR levels was less robust compared with those of absolute values of LVDd and LVEF at 1 year in the present study.The third comment is somewhat misleading because our conclusions were that the levels of ...