1. Public Smoking Bans: Good for the Heart? Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx 1

2. The Issue  Tobacco smoke can cause harm to the heart in two ways:  Directly smoking  Inhaling smoke from others’ cigarettes  Cardiologists need to protect their patients from both causes of tobacco smoke. NOT just cardiologists and their patients. It’s the entire public. Idea is not to BEOME a patient  Second hand smoking increases risk of AMI by 25-30%. Avoid abbreviations why not use Heart Attack?\ Why not introduce the fact that many cities have instituted BANS on indoor smoking? And say what the purpose of the meta analysis was 2

3. Meta-analysis Combining the data from two or more randomized controlled trials. Results of different individual studies in order to find a common truth Study parameters Location Inhabitants Observation time Before and after bans 3 GOOD

4. 4 Results On average the AMI incidence WAS reduced by 17% BTW: maybe betterto say was 17% lower.. Reduced suggests CAUSATION. Are you OK with that?

5. 5 Conclusions  Banning smoking helps reduce second hand smoking  Starts effecting public almost immediately and not just long term.  The bans on smoking in public places can be caused ??? due to many parameters. I DON’T FOLLOW YOU  Therefore ??? meta-analysis is a logical method to pursue. FIRST 2 are surely the take home message… not the Method in last bullet SHORT and SWEET