(Circulation. 1995;92:637-645.)
© 1995 American Heart Association, Inc.
Articles |
From the Cardiology Division, Department of Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Conn, and the Classics Department, Dartmouth College, Hanover NH (Visiting Lecturer) (P.B.K.).
Correspondence to Arnold M. Katz, MD, Cardiology Division, Department of Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington, CT 06030-1305.
| Introduction |
|---|
It is generally recognized that we are
living in the most productive era of science in the history of mankind.
Cardiovascular science has shared in this growth, as seen in the
shifting focus of research in the biological sciences from organ
physiology to cell biochemistry and biophysics in the middle of this
century and, over the past decade, to molecular biology.2
Yet, despite the vast body of knowledge now available, major conceptual
gaps remain in our understanding of heart disease, as evidenced by
surprising, and often counterintuitive, results of large-scale clinical
trials designed to test what were initially believed to be logical
approaches to therapy. One need only consider the recent CAST trial,
which showed that drugs that suppress nonlethal arrhythmias known to
herald a fatal cardiac arrhythmia increase the risk of sudden cardiac
death,3 the adverse experience with inotropes for the
treatment of chronic heart failure,4 5 and growing
evidence that several classes of vasodilator drugs can worsen mortality
in heart failure.6 7 Thus, although modern science
provides valuable insights
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
P. B. Webber Yes, Virginia, Nursing Does Have Laws Nurs Sci Q, January 1, 2008; 21(1): 68 - 73. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
|
Circulation Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search Copyright © 1995 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. |