Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where J. Malcolm O. Arnold is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by J. Malcolm O. Arnold.


Canadian Journal of Cardiology | 2007

The 2009 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for the management of hypertension: Part 2 – therapy

Daniel G. Hackam; Nadia Khan; Brenda R. Hemmelgarn; Simon W. Rabkin; Rhian M. Touyz; Norman R.C. Campbell; Raj Padwal; Tavis S. Campbell; M. Patrice Lindsay; Michael D. Hill; Robert R. Quinn; Jeff Mahon; Robert J. Herman; Ernesto L. Schiffrin; Marcel Ruzicka; Pierre Larochelle; Ross D. Feldman; Marcel Lebel; Luc Poirier; J. Malcolm O. Arnold; Gordon W. Moe; Jonathan G. Howlett; Luc Trudeau; Simon L. Bacon; Robert J. Petrella; Alain Milot; James A. Stone; Denis Drouin; Jean-Martin Boulanger; Mukul Sharma

OBJECTIVE To update the evidence-based recommendations for the prevention and management of hypertension in adults for 2009. OPTIONS AND OUTCOMES For lifestyle and pharmacological interventions, evidence from randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of trials was preferentially reviewed. Changes in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality were the primary outcomes of interest. However, for lifestyle interventions, blood pressure lowering was accepted as a primary outcome given the lack of long-term morbidity and mortality data in this field. Progression of kidney dysfunction was also accepted as a clinically relevant primary outcome among patients with chronic kidney disease. EVIDENCE A Cochrane collaboration librarian conducted an independent MEDLINE search from 2007 to August 2008 to update the 2008 recommendations. To identify additional published studies, reference lists were reviewed and experts were contacted. All relevant articles were reviewed and appraised independently by both content and methodological experts using prespecified levels of evidence. RECOMMENDATIONS For lifestyle modifications to prevent and treat hypertension, restrict dietary sodium to less than 2300 mg (100 mmol)/day (and 1500 mg to 2300 mg [65 mmol to 100 mmol]/day in hypertensive patients); perform 30 min to 60 min of aerobic exercise four to seven days per week; maintain a healthy body weight (body mass index 18.5 kg/m(2) to 24.9 kg/m(2)) and waist circumference (smaller than 102 cm for men and smaller than 88 cm for women); limit alcohol consumption to no more than 14 units per week in men or nine units per week in women; follow a diet that is reduced in saturated fat and cholesterol, and that emphasizes fruits, vegetables and low-fat dairy products, dietary and soluble fibre, whole grains and protein from plant sources; and consider stress management in selected individuals with hypertension. For the pharmacological management of hypertension, treatment thresholds and targets should be predicated on by the patients global atherosclerotic risk, target organ damage and comorbid conditions. Blood pressure should be decreased to lower than 140/90 mmHg in all patients, and to lower than 130/80 mmHg in those with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease. Most patients will require more than one agent to achieve these target blood pressures. Antihypertensive therapy should be considered in all adult patients regardless of age (caution should be exercised in elderly patients who are frail). For adults without compelling indications for other agents, initial therapy should include thiazide diuretics. Other agents appropriate for first-line therapy for diastolic and/or systolic hypertension include angiotensin- converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (in patients who are not black), long-acting calcium channel blockers (CCBs), angiotensin receptor antagonists (ARBs) or beta-blockers (in those younger than 60 years of age). A combination of two first-line agents may also be considered as the initial treatment of hypertension if the systolic blood pressure is 20 mmHg above the target or if the diastolic blood pressure is 10 mmHg above the target. The combination of ACE inhibitors and ARBs should not be used. Other agents appropriate for first-line therapy for isolated systolic hypertension include long- acting dihydropyridine CCBs or ARBs. In patients with angina, recent myocardial infarction or heart failure, beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors are recommended as first-line therapy; in patients with cerebrovascular disease, an ACE inhibitor/diuretic combination is preferred; in patients with proteinuric nondiabetic chronic kidney disease, ACE inhibitors or ARBs (if intolerant to ACE inhibitors) are recommended; and in patients with diabetes mellitus, ACE inhibitors or ARBs (or, in patients without albuminuria, thiazides or dihydropyridine CCBs) are appropriate first-line therapies. All hypertensive patients with dyslipidemia should be treated using the thresholds, targets and agents outlined in the Canadian Cardiovascular Society position statement (recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease). Selected high-risk patients with hypertension who do not achieve thresholds for statin therapy according to the position paper should nonetheless receive statin therapy. Once blood pressure is controlled, acetylsalicylic acid therapy should be considered. VALIDATION All recommendations were graded according to strength of the evidence and voted on by the 57 members of the Canadian Hypertension Education Program Evidence-Based Recommendations Task Force. All recommendations reported here achieved at least 95% consensus. These guidelines will continue to be updated annually.


Canadian Journal of Cardiology | 2013

The 2013 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for blood pressure measurement, diagnosis, assessment of risk, prevention, and treatment of hypertension.

Daniel G. Hackam; Robert R. Quinn; Pietro Ravani; Doreen M. Rabi; Kaberi Dasgupta; Stella S. Daskalopoulou; Nadia Khan; Robert J. Herman; Simon L. Bacon; Lyne Cloutier; Martin Dawes; Simon W. Rabkin; Richard E. Gilbert; Marcel Ruzicka; Donald W. McKay; Tavis S. Campbell; Steven Grover; George Honos; Ernesto L. Schiffrin; Peter Bolli; Thomas W. Wilson; Ross D. Feldman; Patrice Lindsay; Michael D. Hill; Mark Gelfer; Kevin D. Burns; Michel Vallée; G. V. Ramesh Prasad; Marcel Lebel; Donna McLean

We updated the evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, assessment, prevention, and treatment of hypertension in adults for 2013. This years update includes 2 new recommendations. First, among nonhypertensive or stage 1 hypertensive individuals, the use of resistance or weight training exercise does not adversely influence blood pressure (BP) (Grade D). Thus, such patients need not avoid this type of exercise for fear of increasing BP. Second, and separately, for very elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension (age 80 years or older), the target for systolic BP should be < 150 mm Hg (Grade C) rather than < 140 mm Hg as recommended for younger patients. We also discuss 2 additional topics at length (the pharmacological treatment of mild hypertension and the possibility of a diastolic J curve in hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease). In light of several methodological limitations, a recent systematic review of 4 trials in patients with stage 1 uncomplicated hypertension did not lead to changes in management recommendations. In addition, because of a lack of prospective randomized data assessing diastolic BP thresholds in patients with coronary artery disease and hypertension, no recommendation to set a selective diastolic cut point for such patients could be affirmed. However, both of these issues will be examined on an ongoing basis, in particular as new evidence emerges.


Canadian Journal of Cardiology | 2006

Canadian Cardiovascular Society consensus conference recommendations on heart failure 2006: Diagnosis and management

J. Malcolm O. Arnold; Peter Liu; Catherine Demers; Paul Dorian; Nadia Giannetti; Haissam Haddad; George A. Heckman; Jonathan G. Howlett; Andrew Ignaszewski; David E. Johnstone; Philip Jong; Robert S. McKelvie; Gordon W. Moe; John D. Parker; Vivek Rao; Heather J. Ross; Errol J. Sequeira; Anna M. Svendsen; Koon K. Teo; Ross T. Tsuyuki; Michel White

Heart failure remains a common diagnosis, especially in older individuals. It continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality, but major advances in both diagnosis and management have occurred and will continue to improve symptoms and other outcomes in patients. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society published its first consensus conference recommendations on the diagnosis and management of heart failure in 1994, followed by two brief updates, and reconvened this consensus conference to provide a comprehensive review of current knowledge and management strategies. New clinical trial evidence and meta-analyses were critically reviewed by a multidisciplinary primary panel who developed both recommendations and practical tips, which were reviewed by a secondary panel. The resulting document is intended to provide practical advice for specialists, family physicians, nurses, pharmacists and others who are involved in the care of heart failure patients. Management of heart failure begins with an accurate diagnosis, and requires rational combination drug therapy, individualization of care for each patient (based on their symptoms, clinical presentation and disease severity), appropriate mechanical interventions including revascularization and devices, collaborative efforts among health care professionals, and education and cooperation of the patient and their immediate caregivers. The goal is to translate best evidence-based therapies into clinical practice with a measureable impact on the health of heart failure patients in Canada.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 1993

A comparison of management patterns after acute myocardial infarction in Canada and the United States

Jean L. Rouleau; Lemuel A. Moyé; Marc A. Pfeffer; J. Malcolm O. Arnold; Victoria Bernstein; Thomas E. Cuddy; Gilles R. Dagenais; Edward M. Geltman; Steven Goldman; David J. Gordon; Peggy Hamm; Marc Klein; Gervasio A. Lamas; John McCans; Patricia McEwan; Francis J. Menapace; John O. Parker; Francois Sestier; Bruce Sussex; Eugene Braunwald

BACKGROUND There are major differences in the organization of the health care systems in Canada and the United States. We hypothesized that these differences may be accompanied by differences in patient care. METHODS To test our hypothesis, we compared the treatment patterns for patients with acute myocardial infarction in 19 Canadian and 93 United States hospitals participating in the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) study, which tested the effectiveness of captopril in this population of patients after a myocardial infarction. RESULTS In Canada, 51 percent of the patients admitted to a participating coronary care unit had acute myocardial infarctions, as compared with only 35 percent in the United States (P < 0.001). Despite the similar clinical characteristics of the 1573 U.S. patients and 658 Canadian patients participating in the study, coronary arteriography was more commonly performed in the United States than in Canada (in 68 percent vs. 35 percent, P < 0.001), as were revascularization procedures before randomization (31 percent vs. 12 percent, P < 0.001). During an average follow-up of 42 months, these procedures were also performed more commonly in the United States than in Canada. These differences were not associated with any apparent difference in mortality (22 percent in Canada and 23 percent in the United States) or rate of reinfarction (14 percent in Canada and 13 percent in the United States), but there was a higher incidence of activity-limiting angina in Canada than in the United States (33 percent vs. 27 percent, P < 0.007). CONCLUSIONS The threshold for the admission of patients to a coronary care unit or for the use of invasive diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the early and late periods after an infarction is higher in Canada than in the United States. This is not associated with any apparent difference in the rate of reinfarction or survival, but is associated with a higher frequency of activity-limiting angina.


The Lancet | 2007

Effect of angiotensin receptor blockade and antihypertensive drugs on diastolic function in patients with hypertension and diastolic dysfunction: a randomised trial

Scott D. Solomon; Rajesh Janardhanan; Anil Verma; Mikhail Bourgoun; William Lionel Daley; Das Purkayastha; Yves Lacourcière; Stephen Hippler; Harold Fields; Tasneem Z. Naqvi; Sharon L. Mulvagh; J. Malcolm O. Arnold; James D. Thomas; Michael R. Zile; Gerard P. Aurigemma

BACKGROUND Diastolic dysfunction might represent an important pathophysiological intermediate between hypertension and heart failure. Our aim was to determine whether inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which can reduce ventricular hypertrophy and myocardial fibrosis, can improve diastolic function to a greater extent than can other antihypertensive agents. METHODS Patients with hypertension and evidence of diastolic dysfunction were randomly assigned to receive either the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan (titrated to 320 mg once daily) or matched placebo. Patients in both groups also received concomitant antihypertensive agents that did not inhibit the renin-angiotensin system to reach targets of under 135 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and under 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure. The primary endpoint was change in diastolic relaxation velocity between baseline and 38 weeks as determined by tissue doppler imaging. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00170924. FINDINGS 186 patients were randomly assigned to receive valsartan; 198 were randomly assigned to receive placebo. 43 patients were lost to follow-up or discontinued the assigned intervention. Over 38 weeks, there was a 12.8 (SD 17.2)/7.1 (9.9) mm Hg reduction in blood pressure in the valsartan group and a 9.7 (17.0)/5.5 (10.2) mm Hg reduction in the placebo group. The difference in blood pressure reduction between the two groups was not significant. Diastolic relaxation velocity increased by 0.60 (SD 1.4) cm/s from baseline in the valsartan group (p<0.0001) and 0.44 (1.4) cm/s from baseline in the placebo group (p<0.0001) by week 38. However, there was no significant difference in the change in diastolic relaxation velocity between the groups (p=0.29). INTERPRETATION Lowering blood pressure improves diastolic function irrespective of the type of antihypertensive agent used.


Circulation | 2015

Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibition Compared With Enalapril on the Risk of Clinical Progression in Surviving Patients With Heart Failure

Milton Packer; John J.V. McMurray; Akshay S. Desai; Jianjian Gong; Martin Lefkowitz; Adel R. Rizkala; Jean L. Rouleau; Victor Shi; Scott D. Solomon; Karl Swedberg; Michael R. Zile; Karl Andersen; Juan Luis Arango; J. Malcolm O. Arnold; Jan Bělohlávek; Michael Böhm; S. A. Boytsov; Lesley J. Burgess; Walter Cabrera; Carlos Calvo; Chen-Huan Chen; Dukát A; Yan Carlos Duarte; Andrejs Erglis; Michael Fu; Efrain Gomez; Angel Gonzàlez-Medina; Albert Hagège; Jun Huang; Tzvetana Katova

Background— Clinical trials in heart failure have focused on the improvement in symptoms or decreases in the risk of death and other cardiovascular events. Little is known about the effect of drugs on the risk of clinical deterioration in surviving patients. Methods and Results— We compared the angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 (400 mg daily) with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (20 mg daily) in 8399 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in a double-blind trial. The analyses focused on prespecified measures of nonfatal clinical deterioration. In comparison with the enalapril group, fewer LCZ696-treated patients required intensification of medical treatment for heart failure (520 versus 604; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.74–0.94; P=0.003) or an emergency department visit for worsening heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.52–0.85; P=0.001). The patients in the LCZ696 group had 23% fewer hospitalizations for worsening heart failure (851 versus 1079; P<0.001) and were less likely to require intensive care (768 versus 879; 18% rate reduction, P=0.005), to receive intravenous positive inotropic agents (31% risk reduction, P<0.001), and to have implantation of a heart failure device or cardiac transplantation (22% risk reduction, P=0.07). The reduction in heart failure hospitalization with LCZ696 was evident within the first 30 days after randomization. Worsening of symptom scores in surviving patients was consistently more common in the enalapril group. LCZ696 led to an early and sustained reduction in biomarkers of myocardial wall stress and injury (N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide and troponin) versus enalapril. Conclusions— Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition prevents the clinical progression of surviving patients with heart failure more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255.


Journal of the American College of Cardiology | 1994

Prognostic value of neurohumoral activation in patients with an acute myocardial infarction: effect of captopril.

Jean L. Rouleau; Milton Packer; Lemuel A. Moyé; Jacques de Champlain; Daniel G. Bichet; Marc Klein; Jacques R. Rouleau; Bruce Sussex; J. Malcolm O. Arnold; Francois Sestier; John O. Parker; Patricia McEwan; Victoria Bernstein; T. Edward Cuddy; Gervasio A. Lamas; Stephen S. Gottlieb; John McCans; Claude Nadeau; François Delage; Chuan Chuan C Wun; Marc A. Pfeffer

OBJECTIVES This study attempted to evaluate whether neurohumoral activation at the time of hospital discharge in postinfarction patients helps to predict long-term prognosis and whether long-term therapy with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor captopril modifies this relation. BACKGROUND Neurohumoral activation persists at the time of hospital discharge in a large number of postinfarction patients. The Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) study demonstrated that the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor captopril improves survival and decreases the development of severe heart failure in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 40%) but no overt postinfarction heart failure. METHODS In 534 patients in the SAVE study, plasma neurohormone levels were measured a mean of 12 days after infarction. Patients were then randomized to receive captopril or placebo and were followed up for a mean (+/- SD) of 38 +/- 6 months (range 24 to 55). The association between activation of plasma neurohormones at baseline and subsequent cardiovascular mortality or the development of heart failure was assessed with and without adjustment for other important prognostic factors. RESULTS By univariate analysis, activation of plasma renin activity and aldosterone, norepinephrine, atrial natriuretic peptide and arginine vasopressin levels were related to subsequent cardiovascular events, whereas epinephrine and dopamine levels were not. By multivariate analysis, only plasma renin activity (relative risk 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0 to 2.5) and atrial natriuretic peptide (relative risk 2.2, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.8) were independently predictive of cardiovascular mortality, whereas the other neurohormones were not. Only plasma renin activity and aldosterone, atrial natriuretic peptide and arginine vasopressin were independent predictors of the combined end points of cardiovascular mortality, development of severe heart failure or recurrent myocardial infarction. Except for 1-year cardiovascular mortality, the use of captopril did not significantly modify these relations. CONCLUSIONS Neurohumoral activation at the time of hospital discharge in postinfarction patients is an independent sign of poor prognosis. This is particularly true for plasma renin activity and atrial natriuretic peptide. Except for 1-year cardiovascular mortality, captopril does not significantly modify these relations.


Circulation | 1997

Effects of ramipril on plasma fibrinolytic balance in patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction

Douglas E. Vaughan; Jean L. Rouleau; Paul M. Ridker; J. Malcolm O. Arnold; Francis J. Menapace; Marc A. Pfeffer

BACKGROUND The long-term administration of ACE inhibitors to selected patients with left ventricular dysfunction appears to reduce the incidence of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) and unstable angina pectoris. The mechanisms responsible for the reduction in ischemic events are unknown, but likely candidates include effects on the atherosclerotic process, thrombosis, and/or vascular tone. METHODS AND RESULTS The effects of ACE inhibitor therapy with ramipril on plasma fibrinolytic variables were assessed in 120 subjects participating in the Healing and Early Afterload Reduction Therapy (HEART) study, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of acute anterior MI patients who were randomly assigned within 24 hours of the onset of symptoms to receive low-dose ramipril (0.625 mg daily), full-dose ramipril (1.25 mg titrated to 10 mg/d), or placebo for 14 days. Plasma levels of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) activity and PAI-1 antigen and tissue plasminogen activator (TPA) antigen were measured before randomization and on day 14. Clinical characteristics of the three study groups were similar, as were the prerandomization plasma levels of PAI-1 antigen, PAI-1 activity, and TPA antigen. Compared with the placebo group, PAI-1 antigen levels were 44% lower (P=.004) at day 14 in the ramipril-treated patients, and PAI-1 activity levels were 22% lower (P=.02). In contrast, plasma TPA levels were not significantly different between the placebo-treated and ramipril-treated groups. CONCLUSIONS Treatment with ramipril has a significant impact on plasma fibrinolytic variables during the recovery phase after acute MI. The renin-angiotensin system appears to play an important role in the regulation of vascular fibrinolysis, and interruption of this regulatory pathway may contribute to the clinical benefits of ACE inhibitors.


Canadian Journal of Cardiology | 2011

The 2011 Canadian Hypertension Education Program Recommendations for the Management of Hypertension: Blood Pressure Measurement, Diagnosis, Assessment of Risk, and Therapy

Stella S. Daskalopoulou; Nadia Khan; Robert R. Quinn; Marcel Ruzicka; Donald W. McKay; Daniel G. Hackam; Simon W. Rabkin; Doreen M. Rabi; Richard E. Gilbert; Raj Padwal; Martin Dawes; Rhian M. Touyz; Tavis S. Campbell; Lyne Cloutier; Steven Grover; George Honos; Robert J. Herman; Ernesto L. Schiffrin; Peter Bolli; Thomas W. Wilson; Ross D. Feldman; M. Patrice Lindsay; Brenda R. Hemmelgarn; Michael D. Hill; Mark Gelfer; Kevin D. Burns; Michel Vallée; G. V. Ramesh Prasad; Marcel Lebel; Donna McLean

We updated the evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, assessment, prevention, and treatment of hypertension in adults for 2011. The major guideline changes this year are: (1) a recommendation was made for using comparative risk analogies when communicating a patients cardiovascular risk; (2) diagnostic testing issues for renal artery stenosis were discussed; (3) recommendations were added for the management of hypertension during the acute phase of stroke; (4) people with hypertension and diabetes are now considered high risk for cardiovascular events if they have elevated urinary albumin excretion, overt kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, or the presence of other cardiovascular risk factors; (5) the combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (CCB) is preferred over the combination of an ACE inhibitor and a thiazide diuretic in persons with diabetes and hypertension; and (6) a recommendation was made to coordinate with pharmacists to improve antihypertensive medication adherence. We also discussed the recent analyses that examined the association between angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and cancer.


Journal of the American College of Cardiology | 1997

Additive Beneficial Effects of Beta-Blockers to Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors in the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) Study

Pascal J. Vantrimpont; Jean L. Rouleau; Chuan Chuan Wun; Antonio Ciampi; Marc Klein; Bruce Sussex; J. Malcolm O. Arnold; Lemuel A. Moyé; Marc A. Pfeffer

OBJECTIVES This study assessed whether treatment with a beta-adrenergic blocking agent in addition to the use of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor captopril decreases cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction (MI) and whether the presence of neurohumoral activation at the time of hospital discharge predicts the effects of beta-blocker treatment in these patients. BACKGROUND Both beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors have been shown to have beneficial effects in patients with left ventricular dysfunction but no overt heart failure after MI. These patients often have persistent neurohumoral activation at the time of hospital discharge, and one would expect that patients with activation of the sympathetic nervous system derive the most benefit from treatment with beta-blockers. However, beta-blockers are underutilized in this high risk group of patients, and it is unknown whether their beneficial effects are additive to those of ACE inhibitors. METHODS We performed a retrospective analysis of data from the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) study and its neurohumoral substudy. The relations between beta-blocker use at the time of randomization and neurohumoral activation and the subsequent development of cardiovascular events were analyzed by use of Cox proportional hazards models controlling for covariates. RESULTS After adjustment for baseline imbalances, beta-blocker use was associated with a significant reduction in risk of cardiovascular death (30%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12% to 44%) and development of heart failure (21%, 95% CI 3% to 36%), but the reduction in recurrent MI (11%, 95% CI 13% to 31%) was not significant. These reductions were independent of the use of captopril. Beta-blockers were not found to have a greater effect in patients with neurohumoral activation at the time of hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS The beneficial effects of beta-blocker use at the time of hospital discharge in patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction after MI appear to be additive to those of captopril and other interventions known to improve prognosis. Neurohumoral activation at the time of hospital discharge fails to identify those patients who will derive the greatest benefit from treatment with beta-blockers.

Collaboration


Dive into the J. Malcolm O. Arnold's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Marc A. Pfeffer

Brigham and Women's Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Scott D. Solomon

Brigham and Women's Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Qingping Feng

University of Western Ontario

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Gary F. Mitchell

National Institutes of Health

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge