HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
Saving Your Life: Modern Medical Miracles: Matt Lauer’s heart scan
November 28, 2005
(Matt Lauer:) And today we begin a week long series called "Saving Your Life: Modern Medical Miracles." We’re going to show you technological breakthroughs in medicine that could mean the difference between life and death. One new technology that’s getting a lot of attention is a 64-slice cardiac CT scan that is able to capture the images of a human heart in just five heartbeats. The scan can help identify coronary heart disease, the nation ' s number one killer of both men and women. Since I have a family history of heart disease I decided to give the scan a try. The cardiac CT scan is a medical miracle: a high-speed, high resolution non-invasive look at exactly what’s going on inside your heart.
Our Review Summary
TV anchor Matt Lauer, an asymptomatic 47 year old man with no history of diabetes, with normal blood pressure, borderline high cholesterol, and with a family history of heart disease (his 72 year old father had coronary artery bypass graft surgery) undergoes a heart scan on national TV. We learn that two of his arteries are "pristine" while there is a small "bad" plaque in one artery that could "eventually develop into a problem." The cardiologist suggests lifestyle modification, baby aspirin, and a statin. There is no independent, second opinion in the story. What have we gained from this experience? Nothing, unless we are GE (parent company of NBC), and manufacturer of the scanning device used in the story. There are many problems with this story. At the end, we are told that this technology should be used only for people experiencing symptoms such as shortness of breath, chest pain, etc. Yet the story featured asymptomatic Matt Lauer modeling the procedure. That is an example of disease-mongering. In the end, the true message of what this technology can and can't do is completely distorted by the beautiful pictures (3-D rendering of the heart) and empty, non-evidence-based promises. The costs of this technology are ignored. Insurance coverage (an important issue) is downplayed. And the potential harms of having such a scan are not mentioned at all.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
Mentions the availability of the machine in the U.S. since May, 2005.
Does not specify what the costs are, which are entirely out-of-pocket since most insurance companies do not cover it. The cardiologist downplays cost saying that they have had "good luck" getting insurance companies to cover it.
Although the story doesn't exaggerate the prevalence of heart disease, it does not accurately portray the natural history of heart disease. It is still controversial to say that these scans "can show us exactly what's going on in the heart." We still don't know whether plaques (good or bad) found with these scans are actually going to be the ones to cause problems down the road. Matt Lauer's father's heart disease is actually not a major risk factor, which raises the controversy that we don't know what to do with asymptomatic, active and healthy people who could have 'bad' plaques. Matt Lauer also confuses his plaque value of 56 as being 'mild', when in reality this indicates a 'soft' plaque that is more vulnerable to developing an MI.
There is absolutely no evidence provided. In order to really evaluate this, we would need to know how the images correlate with his actual plaque buildup and we would want evidence that early intervention with these scans can actually do anything to prevent an event or bad outcome. Furthermore, we don't know if this lesion could be confirmed with a catheterization (gold standard).
No information on harms is provided, which is a glaring omission. Harms might include: reaction to beta-blockers (to slow the heart rate) or to the contrast dye, exposure to radiation that is many times greater than an x-ray, not to mention any risks from any interventions (catheterization) needed to follow-up on any abnormal findings (that may or may not result in any benefit to the patient). Furthermore, the cardiologist recommends taking statins and aspirin as a result of the findings, but what about the harms of these drugs? What if the lesion were a false positive and the drugs were entirely unnecessary?
The story is clear that this is very new technology.
No estimates of benefit are provided.
We don't know if the info came from a press release.
No attempts are made at independent corroboration. Only a single source is quoted. Does mention that GE makes the machine and owns NBC.
Mentions cardiac catheterization but neglects exercise tests, MRI and older CT scan alternatives. Does not attempt to place this kind of CT in context or explain the advantages or disadvantages.
Total Score: 2 of 9 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.