Author Affiliation: Department of Clinical Cardiology, DMC Cardiovascular Institution, Detroit, Michigan.
I read with great interest the article by Sipahi et al1 and the thoughtful accompanying editorial by Warner Stevenson2 on the impact of QRS duration on outcomes with resynchronization therapy. I wholeheartedly endorse Redberg's acknowledgment of the merit of the article.3 However, considering the data showed that far more costly and invasive procedures were being done than the evidence justified with far less benefit than anticipated, would not the designation “More Is Less” be more appropriate, as is true for many treatments and procedures that fall in the “Less Is More” category?
Ghali JK. More Is Less. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(20):1859-1861. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.515