Skip Navigation


European Heart Journal Advance Access originally published online on December 7, 2004
European Heart Journal 2005 26(2):110-111; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehi056
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
26/2/110    most recent
ehi056v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in EHJ
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lewalter, T.
Right arrow Articles by Lüderitz, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lewalter, T.
Right arrow Articles by Lüderitz, B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

European Heart Journal vol. 26 no. 2 © The European Society of Cardiology 2004; all rights reserved.

Atrial fibrillation: mortality, morbidity, and money; is that all? Importance and variability of burden measurement

Thorsten Lewalter* and Berndt Lüderitz

Department of Medicine-Cardiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Strasse 25, 53105 Bonn, Germany

* Corresponding author. Tel: +49 228 287 5507; fax: +49 228 287 1598. E-mail address: th.lewalter@uni-bonn.de

This editorial refers to ‘Temporal variability of atrial tachyarrhythmia burden in bradycardia–tachycardia syndrome patients’{dagger} by L. Padeletti et al., on page 165

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Primary endpoint selection in atrial fibrillation (AF) therapy trials is currently under critical debate. Health economists promote the evaluation of therapy efficacy only in terms of the ‘three big Ms’: Mortality, Morbidity, and Money. From our perspective, this can only be correct when a therapeutic approach has found its optimum or cannot further increase its efficacy. In addition, even in this case, the ‘three big Ms’ should, at . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in EHJ:

Temporal variability of atrial tachyarrhythmia burden in bradycardia–tachycardia syndrome patients
Luigi Padeletti, Massimo Santini, Giuseppe Boriani, GianLuca Botto, Alessandro Capucci, Michele Gulizia, Renato Ricci, Andrea Spampinato, Paolo Pieragnoli, Eduardo Warman, Marco Vimercati, and Andrea Grammatico
EHJ 2005 26: 165-172. [Abstract] [FREE Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 EuropaceHome page
L. Mont, R. Ruiz-Granell, J. G. Martinez, J. R. Carmona, M. Fidalgo, E. Cobo, M. Riera, X. Navarro, and on behalf of the Prevention or Termination (POT) S
Impact of anti-tachycardia pacing on atrial fibrillation burden when added on top of preventive pacing algorithms: results of the prevention or termination (POT) trial
Europace, January 1, 2008; 10(1): 28 - 34.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]