To the Editor: In the clinical debate over the treatment of choice for acute myocardial infarction (Oct. 24 issue), 1,2 Lange and Hillis argue in favor of thrombolysis. Table 2 in their rebuttal contains two important errors that may mislead many readers. First, the cited report by Eckman et al. 3 is a pooled analysis that included 614 patients from the study by O'Keefe et al., 4 originally reported by Kahn et al. 5 In addition, 383 patients from the study by Brodie et al. 6 were included in the pooled analysis by Eckman et al. 3 Therefore, 997 patients treated with primary angioplasty are represented twice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rosenblatt et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: