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?

David P. Lux, MD
Womack Army Medical Center Fort Bragg, NC

JAMA. 1992;268(2):196-197.

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

To the Editor.

—I am pleasantly surprised to see that the recent findings of the effect of social and economic resources on outcome in coronary artery disease, published by Williams et al¹ comes from an institution (Duke University Medical Center) that has furnished my hospital with countless guest lecturers who religiously preach the gospel of the "angiographically documented open coronary artery" as the final word in postinfarction prognosis, and to explain how the finding of the TIMI-II² and SWIFT³ trials, that postinfarction patients treated conservatively after thrombolysis do as well as individuals catheterized routinely, does not apply to the population treated at Duke. With this evidence that social and economic status affects prognosis in coronary artery disease, a clinical trial of intervention seems appropriate.

As no clinical trial has to my knowledge demonstrated increased survival with performing routine angiography on all postthrombolysis patients who do not have . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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