NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine -
Read Original Story

Study: New device boosts heart failure survival


3 Star

Study: New device boosts heart failure survival

Our Review Summary

Overall, this story does a good job of reporting that a continuous-flow heart assist device performed better than an older, pulsatile-flow model in selected patients with advanced heart disease who were not considered candidates for heart transplants. It highlights the cost as well as the potential benefits of the device. It clearly points out that the manufacturer of the device sponsored the study and that many of the researchers consult for it or other device makers.


However, the story may give readers an exaggerated sense of the value of this device by saying it could help “many older people with severe heart failure” without clearly describing the narrowly defined group of patients that was included in this trial. What’s more, although more than half of the patients who received the new device either died, suffered a stroke or had to have surgery to fix a failed device, the story quotes only patients who reported glowingly positive experiences.


The story also appears to have confused survival rates with the combined endpoint of survival without either a stroke or device failure. The story says that four times as many patients survived for two years with the new device; but the study reports that the two-year survival rates were 58 percent and 24 percent – more than doubling survival, not quadrupling it.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?


The story notes that the device costs $80,000 and that the implantation surgery costs about $45,000. It featured comments about how this new device will add to the substantial cost of advanced heart failure treatment. The story also pointed out that cost-effectiveness studies have not yet been done.

It would have been useful to see the costs of this newer device compared to those associated with existing devices.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story reports the primary finding that after two years 46 percent of patients who received the new device were alive without having suffered a stroke or device failure, compared to 11 percent of the patients receiving the older device. It also pointed out that the study included 200 patients. However, it appears that the story misstates the results somewhat by saying the new device meant four times as many patients survived for at least two years. The 46 percent to 11 percent comparison includes patients who suffered a stroke or a device failure. The study reports that the two-year survival rates were 58 percent for patients with the new device compared to 24 percent for those who received the older device, more than doubling survival, but not quadrupling it.  And rather than citing only relative risk reduction figures, absolute data should have been provided.

Considering that more than half of the patients either died, suffered a stroke or a device failure, the story paints an overly rosy view of patient outcomes by featuring only patients who report glowingly positive experiences.

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

Not Satisfactory

The story notes that 14 percent of the patients receiving the new device died soon after the surgery. However, it did not mention the risk of strokes caused by bleeding, the risk of infection from the wires leading to the devices external power pack or other adverse events. And although patients in this trial who received the newer device required far fewer surgeries to replace or repair their pumps, the story should have noted that 12 patients who got the newer device (9 percent) needed to have surgery to replace a failed device.

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


The story reports the size and key features of the trial comparing new and old heart assist devices. However, it did not point out that patients and their doctors could likely tell which type of device was implanted and that this knowledge could have biased their evaluations of the effectiveness of the devices. Nevertheless, that potential bias would not have altered the primary outcomes of survival, stroke or device failure that the story highlighted.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

Although this story does not exaggerate the seriousness of heart failure, it overstates how widely the new device is likely to be used based on the latest trial. The lead sentence says the new device could be a potential treatment for many people with severe heart failure, but in their New England Journal of Medicine article the authors wrote, “the trial was performed in a select patient population, and applicability to the broader population of patients with heart failure… would be speculative.”

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


The story includes independent experts. It also clearly points out that the trial was sponsored by the manufacturer of the device and that many of the researchers consult for the company or other device makers.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story mentions that heart transplants are one option for patients with heart failure. However, it does not discuss drug management, which is the most common treatment for people with heart failure.

Because this story does not include details about the kind of patient who might be a candidate for this new device, readers may get the sense that drug treatment is relatively ineffective for typical heart failure patients and that this new device may offer many heart failure patients a better option, even though this latest trial included only patients with heart failure so advanced that standard therapies were losing their effectiveness.

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


The story notes that the new device is available and approved for patients who need temporary support while awaiting a heart transplant and that this study looked at how it compared to an older design that is also available to patients who are not candidates for heart transplants.

It would have been helpful to also point out that the surgery to implant the device is challenging and that there are a limited number of surgeons and centers with experience using this new device.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?


The story provides a brief outline of the history of heart assist devices and how they are progressively shifting from being temporary supports for patients awaiting transplant to long-term treatments for patients who may never be candidates for a transplant. It notes that the new feature of the device used in the trial is that it pushes blood continuously, rather than attempting to mimic the pumping pulses of a natural heart.

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


The story does not appear to rely on a news release.

Total Score: 6 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.