Secondary prevention in acute myocardial infarction

In this fortnightly review by Rajendra H Mehta and Kim A Eagle (14 March, pp 838-42), two errors occurred in table 3. Firstly, in the results for the first trial in the “selective” group (Pfeffer et al) the values for relative risk of death should have been 0.19 (0.03 to 0.32); P=0.019 [not 0.21 (0.05 to 0.25); P=0.014]. The published values related to the reduction in cardiovascular mortality, not total mortality. Secondly, in the results for the last trial in the selective group (Ambrossioni et al) the values for relative risk of death should have been 0.25 (0.11 to 0.60); P=0.19 [not 0.34 (0.08 to 0.54); P=0.018]. The published values related to the combined end point of death or congestive heart failure.