This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Marvin L. Murphy, MD; Jo Etta Galbraith, MD; Neil de Soyza, MD
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Veterans Administration Hospital Little Rock, Ark

JAMA. 1979;241(23):2505.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The letter by Vieras and Alter questions the choice of an angiographic lesion of 50% reduction in luminal diameter (equivalent to 75% reduction of the cross-sectional area pathologically) of the coronary artery. This has been a commonly accepted standard for several studies.^1,2 Other studies have used a more stenotic lesion.³ We agree that further evaluation of the functional importance of an obstructive lesion is necessary, including degree of reduction, geometric shape, length, and multiplicity.

There have been several reports in the literature directed at this problem.^4-6 However, the major point in the article was to emphasize the observer variability of interpreting angiograms. It is almost certain, regardless of the degree of angiographic lesion chosen, that there would be a noteworthy interobserver variability.⁷ . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?