Abstract
To the Editor: I am writing regarding the article, “Anti-Ischemic and Anti-Anginal Effects of Thoracic Epidural Anesthesia Versus Those of Conventional Medical Therapy in the Treatment of Severe Refractory Unstable Angina Pectoris” by Olausson et al.1 While doing comparative graphs for a lecture, I found several inconsistencies in the article that diminish its scientific value. The main inconsistency is found in Table 1. During a run-in period, the patients were treated with both nitroglycerin and heparin infusions for 82±18 versus 122±20 and 53±7 versus 104±13 hours, respectively, for controls and the group with thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA). These differences were reported as nonsignificant by the authors. However, when recalculating the statistics, I found values of P <0.14 and P <0.0015 for the nitroglycerin and heparin infusions, respectively. Thus, at least in terms of the heparin infusion, it seems that the patients might not have been properly randomized. In addition, Tables 2 and 3 contain several inconsistencies. …
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
