Explore the vast range of titles available.

There are some errors and oversimplifications. For example, it is stated that cough is produced by amiodarone. The more important statement is that cough occurring in a patient taking amiodarone should alert the examiner to the presence of pulmonary fibrosis, a very serious complication of amiodarone. Similarly, one of the tables indicates that pericarditis is caused by hydralazine and procainamide or anticoagulants. However, this statement is only valid if the patient presents with the side effect of lupus-like syndrome (or an underlying pericarditis made worse by anticoagulants causing bleeding into the pericardial sack). To imply that these drugs have the same cause of pericarditis as renal failure or viral infections is misleading.

SURVIVORS of acute myocardial infarction are at a greatly increased risk for subsequent fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events. 1 This heightened risk is influenced by many factors, the most important of which is the severity of left ventricular dysfunction. The degree of ventricular dysfunction correlates highly with mortality and is useful in stratifying survivors of acute myocardial infarction according to risk. 2 3 4 5 In a rat model of myocardial infarction, progressive left ventricular dilatation has been shown to occur as a function of the size and age of the infarct. 6 , 7 During the early postinfarction phase, before scar formation, there is an increase in . . .

Medical training is very similar in Canada and the United States, in that undergraduate and postgraduate training are both organized along the same lines and are considered equivalent in the two countries 1 – 3 . Not surprisingly, studies comparing the practice patterns of physicians in Canada and the United States have found only minor differences 4 , 5 . Despite these similarities, however, there are important differences in the financing of the two medical care systems, differences that have attracted considerable attention in recent years 1 – 10 . In Canada, expenditures for health care are controlled by the government, whereas in the United States . . .

Conventional wisdom pins responsibility for the Vietnam War primarily on Lyndon B. Johnson. This essay presents a revisionist argument, attempting to shift primary responsibility for the war on President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The case rests heavily on John F. Kennedy's challenge to historians: “How the hell” can they evaluate presidential performances unless they know the “real pressures” and the “real alternatives” confronting the occupiers of the Oval Office. In assessing those pressures, this essay concludes that Eisenhower had the unique luxury of a clean break from President Truman's commitments, thanks to the Vietnamese victory at Dien Bien Phu, and a clear-cut alternative provided by the Geneva Accords. Unfortunately, Eisenhower chose to ignore the Accords, committed America to South Vietnam, and played a major role, during and after his presidency, in creating the heavy pressures that shaped Johnson's Vietnam decisions.

No more Cubas!” For a quarter of a century, that slogan has propelled American intervention into Latin America. President Kennedy's Alliance for Progress was designed to head off more Castro-type revolutions in the region. In 1965, President Johnson crushed a revolution in the Dominican Republic, declaring that “another Cuba in this hemisphere would be unacceptable.” And the Nixon plan for subverting the Chilean government in the early 1970s was motivated, in Henry Kissinger's words, by fear of Allende's “patent intention to create another Cuba.”