To the Editor.
—Leak and Eydt's recent publication in the Archives (138:1780-1782, 1978) impressed me initially as an article I had been waiting to read, offering statistical confirmation of the justification and validity of the intermediate coronary care unit. Unfortunately, analysis of their methods and data raise serious reservations as to the importance of their conclusions.The authors had pointed out that the mortality from acute coronary artery disease on days 3 to 14 after admission was significantly reduced (group C) in comparison to the group that received no ECG monitoring (group A) in the same time reference.Group C encompassed the "final year" of the study, two years after group A was studied. The anticipated improvement in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)1 performance with time has been described in the past and also during the same month as Leak and Eydt's investigation.2 The dramatic twofold decrease in mortality on
Coskey RL. Intermediate Coronary Care. Arch Intern Med. 1980;140(1):135–136. doi:10.1001/archinte.1980.00330130137042
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: