Read Original Story

To Inspect the Heart, Some Doctors Now Start at the Wrist


4 Star

To Inspect the Heart, Some Doctors Now Start at the Wrist

Our Review Summary

This is an engaging and important enterprise story that explained a number of important issues to be factored in when considering medical interventions. It also nicely highlights the tension that exists in the development of new and presumably less invasive approaches to cardiac catheterization and angioplasty. It’s refreshing to still find 1,600-word stories that go into such detail.

It is clear from the story that:

  • Cardiologists are not of one mind about the value or benefit of doing cardiac catheterizations thorugh the radial artery in the wrist as opposed to the femoral artery in the groin.  
  • Different physicians value patient comfort differently.  
  • Different physicians may be more comfortable with, and better with, certain procedures. 

However what was lacking from this story was an examination of the overall success rate of the intended procedure.  While patient comfort surely has value, procedure outcome is vital. We never learned any data about whether the actual goal of opening an artery is any better one way or another.

Interestingly, the cited meta analysis is only partially acknowledged.  While a trend was noted toward an advantage to the radial artery approach (in terms of bleeding and procedural outcome), the authors concluded a large randomized trial is necessary to determine the true value of the approach. And that wasn’t mentioned in the story.

Overall, though, the story delivers a clear picture of why patients need to have conversations with their caregivers about the risks and benefits of the various options available for their treatment.  Being aware that there is often not a single answer to questions about the course of action is an important step towards making decisions that will get you the care that is best for you.

The online version also included helpful graphics and a video.  


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?


The story mentions that using the wrist may better enable patients to avoid an "expensive overnight hospital stay" and that Medicare reimbursement was the same even though this route for catheterization may involve more physician time. But the story didn’t include any specific cost information about this new approach.  Shouldn’t the physicians interviewed know whether their charge to patients depends on the vessel used? Nonetheless, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The benefit of the treatment was presented in terms of patient comfort and time, and presented quantitative information indicating the radial approach results in a reduction in bleeding complications as compared with the femoral artery. But it did not provide any data about the outcomes of the procedure, namely, "How did it do in opening arteries?"  It is interesting to note that the meta-analysis cited in the story concluded that additional studies are needed to better define the role of this approach, which was not mentioned in the story. 

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story mentioned that arterial spasms tops the list of complications with this procedure and indicated that it was particularly problematic in "little old ladies."  Beyond this, the story did not give the reader any idea of how common this sort of problem was, making it difficult for readers to evaluate.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The story did an incomplete job of including relevant evidence about the use of the radial artery for coronary catheterization. Since the  cardiac cath and angioplasty is intended to relieve symptoms by unblocking a coronary artery, it would have been helpful to have commented on the literature on outcome differences between the two approaches.  The story implies an equal outcome with less risk of bleeding and shorter hospitalizations; both positive from the patient’s perspective.  Without any comment on the outcome of the cath and angioplasty, patients cannot place a value on the radial approach. 

The story touched on the notion that there was a steep learning curve in order to develop proficiency using the radial insertion site. But there was both insufficient information for potential patients to use to assess whether the clinician they were consulting had adequate experience and what the ramifications of using this site without adequate experience might be.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?


The story did not engage in disease mongering.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?


The story included interview material from clinicians who utilize this technique only rarely as well as those who rely on it extensively.  In addition, there were several patient quotes that presented the view from the other side of the table.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?


While there was no discussion about the appropriate use of cardiac catheterization in general, the story included information about the two arterial routes that may be used for the procedure.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


The story indicated that radial catheterization is most likely not routinely available and that a low percentage (1%) of catheterizations are performed this way.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?


The story did a good job placing the novelty of the approach into context.  Reading the various physicians’ experiences with this technique, it is clear that it is not novel and yet is also not commonly utilized.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?


Clearly, the story did not rely on a news release.

Total Score: 7 of 10 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.