The Risks of Lone Atrial Fibrillation

David H. Spodick; Palle Petersen; Gudrun Boysen; Henry I. Bussey; Raylene M. Rospond; Christine M. Quandt; Robert L. Talbert; Bernard J. Gersh; Michael D. McGoon; Stephen L. Kopecky; Jack Whisnant; David Holmes

doi:10.1056/NEJM198803103181013

The Risks of Lone Atrial Fibrillation

David H. Spodick, Palle Petersen, Gudrun Boysen, Henry I. Bussey, Raylene M. Rospond, Christine M. Quandt, Robert L. Talbert, Bernard J. Gersh, Michael D. McGoon, Stephen L. Kopecky, Jack Whisnant, David Holmes

Cardiovascular Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter › peer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

To the Editor: Kopecky and his colleagues (Sept. 10 issue)¹ contribute a careful study of lone atrial fibrillation, distinguished by its quasi-prospective design. However, the authors may wish to address a problem of definition. They refer to Evans and Swann's classic paper defining “lone” as “in the absence of any other clinical evidence to suggest a primary cardiac disorder.”² The implications of “clinical” become crucial, because 21 of the patients in the series of Kopecky et al. had interventricular conduction delay, 10 had axis deviations, and 2 had bundle-branch blocks. Why were such electrocardiographic abnormalities not cause for exclusion? Had.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	639-640
Number of pages	2
Journal	New England Journal of Medicine
Volume	318
Issue number	10
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198803103181013
State	Published - Mar 10 1988

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Medicine(all)

Access to Document

10.1056/NEJM198803103181013

Cite this

@article{4f8e4d7bdb1740dcbc43da28e15b7afd,

title = "The Risks of Lone Atrial Fibrillation",

abstract = "To the Editor: Kopecky and his colleagues (Sept. 10 issue)1 contribute a careful study of lone atrial fibrillation, distinguished by its quasi-prospective design. However, the authors may wish to address a problem of definition. They refer to Evans and Swann's classic paper defining “lone” as “in the absence of any other clinical evidence to suggest a primary cardiac disorder.”2 The implications of “clinical” become crucial, because 21 of the patients in the series of Kopecky et al. had interventricular conduction delay, 10 had axis deviations, and 2 had bundle-branch blocks. Why were such electrocardiographic abnormalities not cause for exclusion? Had.",

author = "Spodick, {David H.} and Palle Petersen and Gudrun Boysen and Bussey, {Henry I.} and Rospond, {Raylene M.} and Quandt, {Christine M.} and Talbert, {Robert L.} and Gersh, {Bernard J.} and McGoon, {Michael D.} and Kopecky, {Stephen L.} and Jack Whisnant and David Holmes",

year = "1988",

month = mar,

day = "10",

doi = "10.1056/NEJM198803103181013",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "318",

pages = "639--640",

journal = "New England Journal of Medicine",

issn = "1533-4406",

publisher = "Massachussetts Medical Society",

number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Risks of Lone Atrial Fibrillation

AU - Spodick, David H.

AU - Petersen, Palle

AU - Boysen, Gudrun

AU - Bussey, Henry I.

AU - Rospond, Raylene M.

AU - Quandt, Christine M.

AU - Talbert, Robert L.

AU - Gersh, Bernard J.

AU - McGoon, Michael D.

AU - Kopecky, Stephen L.

AU - Whisnant, Jack

AU - Holmes, David

PY - 1988/3/10

Y1 - 1988/3/10

N2 - To the Editor: Kopecky and his colleagues (Sept. 10 issue)1 contribute a careful study of lone atrial fibrillation, distinguished by its quasi-prospective design. However, the authors may wish to address a problem of definition. They refer to Evans and Swann's classic paper defining “lone” as “in the absence of any other clinical evidence to suggest a primary cardiac disorder.”2 The implications of “clinical” become crucial, because 21 of the patients in the series of Kopecky et al. had interventricular conduction delay, 10 had axis deviations, and 2 had bundle-branch blocks. Why were such electrocardiographic abnormalities not cause for exclusion? Had.

AB - To the Editor: Kopecky and his colleagues (Sept. 10 issue)1 contribute a careful study of lone atrial fibrillation, distinguished by its quasi-prospective design. However, the authors may wish to address a problem of definition. They refer to Evans and Swann's classic paper defining “lone” as “in the absence of any other clinical evidence to suggest a primary cardiac disorder.”2 The implications of “clinical” become crucial, because 21 of the patients in the series of Kopecky et al. had interventricular conduction delay, 10 had axis deviations, and 2 had bundle-branch blocks. Why were such electrocardiographic abnormalities not cause for exclusion? Had.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0023828823&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0023828823&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1056/NEJM198803103181013

DO - 10.1056/NEJM198803103181013

M3 - Letter

C2 - 3344010

AN - SCOPUS:0023828823

SN - 1533-4406

VL - 318

SP - 639

EP - 640

JO - New England Journal of Medicine

JF - New England Journal of Medicine

IS - 10

ER -

The Risks of Lone Atrial Fibrillation

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this