HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
'Closed-heart' a less-invasive alternative
April 03, 2006
The need for a less invasive alternative is great and growing. Already, about 50,000 people in the U.S. have open-heart surgery every year to replace the aortic valve.
Our Review Summary
Minimally-invasive surgery, also known as percutaneous surgery, represents an important development in the treatment of aortic valve disease. Aortic valve disease typically occurs in adults over the age of 65 and is a common cause of heart failure. Risk factors include increasing age, obesity, and high blood pressure. Surgery to undergo aortic valve replacement is most often performed via 'open heart' surgery, a very invasive procedure in which the patient's ribs are cracked open to access the heart. In this story, we learn of an experimental minimally-invasive procedure in which artificial valves are moved to the heart using image guidance through an incision in the femoral artery. The prevalence and seriousness of aortic valve disease are accurately described.The story clearly points out that this is a new, experimental procedure that is performed only in the context of research (so far only 19 Americans have undergone the procedure). We also learn that because of the experimental nature of the procedure, it should only be used in those patients who are too sick to endure open heart surgery. The story correctly describes the nature of the existing evidence, with research still in progress; we don't know if this procedure will extend lives or improve quality of life. The story provides balanced information on harms by presenting the death rates for both the experimental treatment and conventional surgery. By quoting multiple sources, it is clear that the story did not rely solely on a press release for information. No costs are presented. Overall, this was a balanced and complete story.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
The story emphasizes that this is an experimental treatment that has only been used in the context of research and only in 19 patients in the U.S. The story does not make claims about future FDA approval, which is appropriate.
The story does not mention costs.
The seriousness and prevalence of aortic valve disease are accurately depicted. Appropriately, the story emphasizes that the experiments are now limited to use on the aortic valve.
The story accurately describes the nature of the existing evidence, which is still research in progress. The story correctly points out that we don't know if the treatment will extend life or improve quality of life.
The harms of artificial valve placement are potentially very serious and are well described. The chance of death for both the artificial valve and conventional valve replacement surgery are presented.
It is clear in this story that this is a new treatment.
The story presents what is known about the death rates in artificial valve and conventional valve surgery. The story also points out that we don't know whether the artificial valve will extend life or improve quality of life. It explained that it is still unknown how this would work in "less sick patients who could survive open-heart valve replacement but want to avoid its rigors."
Because multiple sources are quoted, it seems unlikely that the story relied solely on text from a press release.
The story includes quotes from multiple sources.
The story mentions conventional open valve surgery as the alternative. The story correctly states that currently the only candidates for the experimental surgery are those who are too sick to undergo open surgery. It emphasizes that it is still unknown how this would work in "less sick patients who could survive open-heart valve replacement but want to avoid its rigors."
Total Score: 9 of 10 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.