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?

Edward D. Folland, MD
The Medical Center of Central Massachusetts Worcester

JAMA. 1993;269(12):1503.

	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.

—The experience of Graboys et al¹ reported in their article "Results of a Second-Opinion Trial Among Patients Recommended for Coronary Angiography" is neither surprising nor representative of the overall practice of coronary angiography in the United States. By definition, they are reporting a select population—patients who for one reason or another have sought a second opinion regarding a recommendation for coronary angiography.

Evidence that their patients are not representative is found in comparing the severity of symptoms of their 186 patients with 75 999 unselected, consecutive patients with diagnostic catheterization reported to the national registry of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions in 1991. Class III or IV symptoms were present in only 12% of the patients reported by Graboys et al compared with 48% of registry patients.² It has long been known through properly randomized studies that stable patients with mild symptoms and . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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