This article does an excellent job of providing both the details and the broader context for new findings about the risk of replacing implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) that are the subject of safety advisories or recalls.
By explaining what the devices do, what can go wrong if they malfunction, and what malfunctions might mean for patients, the article helps readers understand why it is helpful to know what can happen if a recalled device is replaced instead of left in the body. The article makes it clear that while some malfunctions are deadly, others are minor–and that patients and their doctors have to decide whether to leave a device in place or to replace it based in part on the patient’s situation and what failure might mean. The role of these new data on the risks of replacement is made clear in the article. Another helpful aspect is the statement that the findings of the Canadian study also apply to the U.S.
The article also acknowledges that a quoted expert has received funding from device makers. Potential confusion over the term ‘recall’ is also noted, although not clarified.
One big issue that is not dealt with well is that the initial decision threshold for putting these devices in place may change now, based on the higher failure rates and the higher rates of complications with replacement. This would be a good followup story.
This story accomplished a lot in less than 800 words.
The article notes that surgery to replace devices that are the subject of safety advisories can cost thousands of dollars.
The article includes the numbers of patients who had serious complications after replacement surgery, as well as how many had minor problems. Data are also included that would help readers assess how the risks of replacing a device compare with the device manufacturers’ estimates of how often something could go wrong if it was left in place.
Article lists all harms noted in the study, both serious and less serious, and explains that the authors did not track what happened to patients who did not have devices replaced. The story did note that untreated abnormal rhythms can be ‘potentially deadly’. However, the article notes that manufacturers estimate the rate of failure for devices that are subject to safety advisories, and also lists both the minor and serious things that can go wrong with them. One big issue that is not dealt with well is that the initial decision threshold for putting these devices in place may change now, based on the higher failure rates and the higher rates of complications with replacement.
Article notes that the quoted expert has financial ties to device manufacturers, and that he asserts that this research was done without funding from the industry.
It is clear from the article that leaving a ‘recalled’ device in place is an option. Other options for treating heart rhythm problems are not noted. However, there are often not good options.
It is clear from the article that defibrillators are available.
It is clear from the article that defibrillators are not a novel treatment.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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