This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor:—
Dr. Charles K. Friedberg's article on abandoning anticoagulants in myocardial infarction (JAMA180:307 [April 28] 1962) is an incomplete analysis of the problem.Dr. Friedberg continually speaks of the reduction in thromboembolism and ignores myocardial rupture, intimal hemorrhage, renal hemorrhage, and cerebral hemorrhage. Simply because a mode of treatment has a favorable influence on the process treated does not make the treatment practicable or desirable. For instance, bilateral pyelonephritis could be 100% "cured" by bilateral nephrectomy.Dr. Friedberg points out that 100 series favor anticoagulation and only a "half-dozen" are against, as if scientific proof were a matter of democracy.In analyzing the Danish series he states, "Furthermore, the disproportionately low incidence of thromboembolism in the treated as compared with that in the untreated, fatal cases, indicates a much higher incidence of other serious complications in the treated cases, which casts doubt on the claims the
Howie DL. Anticoagulant Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction. JAMA. 1962;181(9):804–805. doi:10.1001/jama.1962.03050350066022
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: