FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 330:286-288 January 27, 1994 Number 4 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited Related Article by Mason, J. W. PubMed Citation

To the Editor: Mason and his colleagues are to be commended for undertaking the first large, randomized study to compare the roles of electrophysiologic testing and ambulatory monitoring in predicting the efficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs (Aug. 12 issue)^1,2,3.

However, Dr. Mason's conclusion about the effect of the study findings on the approach to patients with serious ventricular arrhythmias is misleading. The first article reporting on the Electrophysiologic Study versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial¹ offers a direct comparison of electrophysiologic testing with Holter-guided therapy; its conclusion simply states, "There was no significant difference [between the two methods]." However, the second . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References

HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.