Balloon angioplasty surgery 3-28 days after a heart attack in combination with drug therapy does not improve the risk of future cardiac problems compared with drug therapy alone. While the story mentions these two treatments for reducing the chance of a subsequent heart attack following an initial heart attack and increasing survival, it does not mention just how much benefit a patient would get from either treatment option post-heart attack. While it was not part of the study, the story also does not mention that lifestyle changes (including diet, exercise and smoking cessation) still play a role in decreasing risk of future heart attacks.
The story notes that the results of this study should change the way cardiologists practice, which is a nod to evidence-based medicine vs. conventional wisdom. The story accurately describes the study design, but summarizes the results narratively and provides no quantitative evidence. The story mentions that data from the study was presented at a conference, but it has also been peer-reviewed in a reputable medical journal.
The story does not mention the harms of angioplasty following a heart attack, nor is there any discussion of potential harms of a multiple drug regimen, including ACE inhibitors, beta blockers, statins and aspirin, all of which have side effects. The story also does not mention that researchers noticed a trend of early heart attacks in the angioplasty group, but that further research was necessary to see if this was a result of the procedure or simply due to chance.
The story does not mention the cost of each treatment reviewed in the study. The cost of lifelong drug therapy would be particularly expensive for patients without health insurance. The journal article mentions, but the story does not, that many of the authors of the study receive funding from makers of heart drugs.
The story does not mention the cost of each treatment reviewed in the study. The cost of lifelong drug therapy could be particularly expensive for patients without health insurance.
The story does not mention how much benefit a patient would get from either treatment option post-heart attack. No absolute data were given – only that "there was no difference between the two groups in death rate, second heart attacks, or heart failure."
The story does not mention the harms of angioplasty following a heart attack, nor is there any discussion of potential harms of a multiple drug regimen, including ACE inhibitors, beta blockers, statins and aspirin, all of which have side effects. The story does not mention that researchers noticed a trend of early heart attacks in the angioplasty group, but that further research was necessary to see if this was a result of the procedure or due to chance.
The story does describe the study design and results narratively. However, the story does not provide any quantitative data. The story mentions that the results of the study were presented at a conference, but they have also been peer-reviewed in a reputable medical journal.
The story does not engage in disease mongering. The story only focuses on information relevant to patients who have had a heart attack.
The lead author of the study is interviewed, as is a practicing cardiologist. Both provide perspective on the results of the recently published data and how this challenges current treatment. The journal article mentions, but the story doesn't, that many of the lead authors receive funding from makers of heart medications. Pharmaceutical and device (stent manufacturers) donated medications for the study, but the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute was the main funder.
The story mentions two treatments for increasing survival and reducing the chance of a subsequent heart attack following an initial heart attack. While it was not part of the study, the story does not mention that lifestyle changes (including diet, exercise and smoking cessation) still play a role in decreasing risk of future heart attacks. There is evidence that lifestyle modifications that result in weight loss, improved blood pressure, and improved diabetic control result in better cardiovascular outcomes.
Drug therapy and angioplasty have been standard practice for patients who have had a heart attack. The story reports on the results of a large multi-site study and does mention that physicians should change this practice, based on new evidence.
The story mentions that the results of this study should change the way cardiologists practice. Balloon angioplasty surgery 3-28 days after a heart attack in combination with drug therapy does not improve the risk of future cardiac problems compared with drug therapy alone.
The information in the story in not taken directly from a press release. There is independent reporting and a cardiac specialist not affiliated with the study is interviewed (briefly!) for perspective on the findings.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
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
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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