1955
DOI: 10.1001/archneurpsyc.1955.02330080051013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recurrent Cerebral Embolism

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

1956
1956
1982
1982

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The few cases of emboli reported here support the impression of Fisher (1955) and Towbin (1955) that they may start with stuttering symptoms; however, the embolism from the heart and from the wall changes in the proximal part of the carotid tree must be differentiated, the latter in itself being particularly liable to repeated attacks. The features of embolism from different heart diseases cannot be discussed from the present material, but in the rheumatic heart diseases the prognosis is better than in embolism from other heart diseases (Gilberf 1948).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…The few cases of emboli reported here support the impression of Fisher (1955) and Towbin (1955) that they may start with stuttering symptoms; however, the embolism from the heart and from the wall changes in the proximal part of the carotid tree must be differentiated, the latter in itself being particularly liable to repeated attacks. The features of embolism from different heart diseases cannot be discussed from the present material, but in the rheumatic heart diseases the prognosis is better than in embolism from other heart diseases (Gilberf 1948).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…In some patients the predominant symptoms may be neuropsychiatric (Towbin, 1955). The patient 'd' in our rejections may well have been one of these.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…They consider the patient to be a "poor risk" case, when one or more of the following poor prognostic factors are present during the first 24 hours of hospitalization: (1) evidence of a previous myocardial infarction; (2) intractable pain; (3) extreme degree or persistence of shock; (4) significant enlargement of the heart; (5) gallop rhythm; (6) congestive heart failure; (7) atrial fibrillation or flutter, ventricular tachycardia, or intraventricular block; (8) The Committee divided the cases of its series into good and poor risk groups, following criteria similar to and even more rigid than those of Russek and co-workers. Only 17 per cent of the cases could have been classified as "good risk" cases as contrasted with 47 per cent reported by Russek.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%