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?

Bernard Lown, MD

JAMA. 1981;246(21):2482-2483.

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

At the very inception of the coronary care unit (CCU) era, lidocaine hydrochloride became the mainstay of antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Introduction of this agent was considered the basis for decrease in the 30% fatality rate recorded among hospitalized patients with acute myocardial infarction.¹ This fatality rate had prevailed unchanged over many decades. A number of studies, however, failed to provide convincing evidence demonstrating a lessened incidence of ventricular fibrillation after the use of lidocaine. Neither the expressed doubts of the academic world nor the absence of hard data quenched the enthusiasm or restrained CCU physicians from enfilading all comers with lidocaine. A Lancet editorial demurring of this practice recalled the injunction of Pasteur to "keep your enthusiasm but let strict verification be its constant companion."²

It is worth examining the basis for the widespread acceptance of lidocaine therapy. The focus of care in the early CCUs was on . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Harvard School of Public Health Boston

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