The average reduction in pulse rate ^or?m 2 3 w^en the original rate was 120, to 5 points for an receive^ ' ("?rresponding figures in a number of fibrillators who ^0^ted arnass^ve dose of digitalis were 52 and 17, but, as has been the two groups are not strictly comparable since ^0llgh 6 nori~^^)r^^a1:ors this series were not fully digitalised. correjat< ^e scatter shown on the graph is rather wide, the *he ar^Q011 coefficient (0*54) between the original heart rate and ?)j ?f retardation is a highly significant figure. *s low a 1S may depress the pulse rate even when the initial rate rUnner' aS is illustrated by the following case.
1
—
—