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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The story did not engage in disease mongering.
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.
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.
The story indicated that radial catheterization is most likely not routinely available and that a low percentage (1%) of catheterizations are performed this way.
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.
Clearly, the story did not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like