Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The article discusses the comparative antiarrhythmic effectiveness of trimecaine and lidocaine in patients with acute myocardial infarction in the first 24 hours of the disease. The 45 patients included in the study were separated into 3 groups: the 1st (control) group consisted of 15 patients with acute myocardial infarction who were not given antiarrhythmic or arrhythmogenic agents; the 2nd group was formed of 15 patients who from the time of admission were given trimecaine by intravenous drip at a rate of 2 mg/min for purposes of prevention after preliminary jet-injection of 80 mg of the drug; the 3rd group consisted of 15 patients given lidocaine by the same schedule. An antiarrhythmic effect was noted in 60% of group 2 patients and in 87% of group 3 patients. No antiarrhythmic effect was produced in 40% of patients treated with trimecaine and in 13% of those given lidocaine.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!