After reviewing more than 400 original and review articles, Kendall and colleagues [1] recently concluded that "of all the therapies currently available for the prevention of sudden cardiac death none is more established or more effective than ß-blockers." One month after this review was published, Hoes and colleagues [2] reported the results of a case–control study of 257 patients who had died suddenly while receiving drug therapy for hypertension and of 257 controls who were also receiving drug therapy for hypertension. Hoes and colleagues concluded that the use of ß-blockers is associated with an increased risk for sudden death compared with other antihypertensive medications. These contradictory conclusions appearing in Annals only 1 month apart may confuse the practicing physician. Clearly, the two reports cannot be reconciled. Should they have been published in the same issue and accompanied by an editorial? They probably should have, although it would be difficult to comment on two such diametrically different studies. What should the practicing physician do? Prudence would suggest that we 1) disregard the unequivocal conclusions of both articles, because neither a review of the literature nor a case–control study provides definite evidence; 2) remember that arrhythmias and blood pressure are surrogate end points that do not always change in parallel with actual end points [such as sudden death and acute myocardial infarction]; and 3) await findings of well-controlled randomized trials. It is nevertheless sobering that, after ß-blockers have been used for more than three decades to treat cardiovascular disorders [3], their real benefits remain uncertain.