|
|
||||||||
Ann Thorac Surg 2001;72:S2212-S2213
© 2001 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
a c/o Ms Diane Beatty, Ischemia Research and Education Foundation, 250 Executive Park Blvd, Suite 3400, San Franciso, CA 94134, USA
In the outline of the manuscript that I reviewed, there is an attempt to define outcomes as useful and consistent means with which uniform comparisons can be made across groups, databases, trials, and so forth. Specifically, the question of how to measure myocardial infarction was raised, and this obviously is a very complex question. We all struggle with it, inasmuch as we struggle with single-cell death versus patient death and the wide spectrum of changes that we see in between. I believe that in most practices, myocardial infarction is measured electrocardiographically, and I believe that we all have trepidation with respect to using enzymatic measures because we really do not know the exact thresholds that define myocardial infarction. What we lack, though, is consensus regarding how to measure injury; and this symposium, and the panel discussion that follows, is a step toward reaching such a consensus. As is evident from this symposium, there are many types of injury after bypass operations. There is the broad spectrum of degree of plaque stability with which
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |