Key result
Prolonged bed rest for the treatment of myocardial infarction is an unproved traditional procedure that requires critical reevaluation.
Why the study?
Is prolonged bed rest beneficial or harmful in the treatment of myocardial infarction?
Is prolonged bed rest beneficial or harmful in the treatment of myocardial infarction?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This editorial questions the traditional, unproved practice of prolonged bed rest in the treatment of myocardial infarction.
IN MEDICINE the ritualistic following of unproved traditional procedures is a common fault. Although it is never sound to desert the established practice because it is unproved, it is always important to review periodically the evidence bearing upon it. This is especially true when the treatment involves conflicts with the natural, perhaps instinctive, tendencies of the patient. For many years the physician rigidly restricted the fluid intake of edematous persons, with no voice but the patient's raised in protest. Surgical and obstetric patients were likewise kept at prolonged postoperative or postpartum bed rest until critical thought, and perhaps the shortage . . .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Irvin et al. (1950) conducted an editorial in Myocardial Infarction. Bed rest was evaluated. Prolonged bed rest for the treatment of myocardial infarction is an unproved traditional procedure that requires critical reevaluation.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: