Abstract
To the Editor:— In the October 3 issue ofThe Journal, in a communication on chest injury and coronary occlusion (p. 392), Master suggested that the use of acute coronary thrombosis in the title of my paper (Leinoff, H. D.; Acute Coronary Thrombosis in Industry, Arch. Int. Med. 70 :33 [July] 1942) was misleading. This is untrue since I definitely have suggested that in all these cases a better diagnostic term would have been acute traumatic heart disease with myocardial and pericardial damage. The conclusion also stresses the importance of a differential diagnosis between acute occlusion and traumatic heart damage. He has further confused this subject by attempting to discuss physical exertions and direct nonpenetrating chest injuries as one. I should like to take this opportunity of stressing the fact that these two types of injuries should be considered separately at all times, since the mechanisms and the end results
Published Version
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 call