This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Coumel, P. Articles by Wilde, A. A.M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Coumel, P. Articles by Wilde, A. A.M. Related Collections Arrhythmias, clinical electrophysiology, drugs

(Circulation. 2001;104:845.)
© 2001 American Heart Association, Inc.

Current Perspective

Learning From Mistakes: The Case of Clinical Electrophysiology

A Perspective on Evidence-Based Rhythmology

Philippe Coumel, MD; Arthur A.M. Wilde, MD

From the Department of Cardiology, Lariboisiére Hospital, Paris, France (P.C.); and the Experimental and Molecular Cardiology Group, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, and the Interuniversity Cardiology Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (A.A.M.W.).

Correspondence to Pr P. Coumel, Hôpital Lariboisiére, 2 rue Ambroise-Paré, 75010 Paris, France. E-mail philippe.coumel@lrb.ap-hop-paris.fr

Key Words: electrophysiology • death, sudden • defibrillation • long-QT syndrome • trials

	Introduction

 
Since the time of Claude Bernard, progress has been based on medical evidence. Today, however, statistical findings increasingly prevail over the spirit customarily required for evaluating medical evidence. We may have to change our mode of reasoning to prevent the discovery of error from becoming our primary source of progress. A statistics-based conclusion is relevant only if the contribution and importance of the criteria studied are taken into account. Statistical science recognizes this, but statistics users, particularly physicians, often ignore it. Consequently, the inappropriate use of statistics leads to mistakes, even misinformation, at times when clinical judgment would be a more reliable way of avoiding error.

	Assessment of Arrhythmias and Drugs

 
Therapeutic trials are regulated by strict rules: They must be prospective, placebo-controlled, randomized, and analyzed according to predefined end points on an intention-to-treat basis. Moreover, the analysis of non-prestratified subgroups is discouraged. Nevertheless, instances in which an observational study leads to significantly different conclusions are quite exceptional; to quote Benson and Hartz,¹ ". . . [there is] little evidence that estimates of treatment effects in observational studies reported after 1984 are either consistently larger than or qualitatively different from those obtained in randomized, controlled trials."

When investigating a drug combination that is considered clinically valid, it is almost impossible to carry out the trial in full compliance with all regulations. This is exemplified by the study on the combination of amiodarone and ß-blockers in sudden-death prevention.² It is difficult to reconcile so-called pragmatic trials (ie, those with large, nonrelevant targets) and so-called tedious trials . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Farre and H. J. Wellens Obituary to: Philippe Coumel - A founding father of modern arrhythmology Eur. Heart J., June 2, 2004; 25(12): 1083 - 1084. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.ón. Farré and H. J. Wellens Philippe Coumel: a founding father of modern arrhythmology Europace, January 1, 2004; 6(5): 464 - 465. [Full Text] [PDF]