New valve procedure doesn’t open heart
Reviewed By
Rating
New valve procedure doesn’t open heart
Our Review Summary
This was a story about evolving options for the treatment of valvular heart disease. It provided the contrast between a mother and daughter, who had open heart and percutaneous valve therapy, respectively. One involved a long hospital stay, long recuperation, and a procedure that resulted in a scar. The other required only a few days in the hospital, a short recovery period and no scar. However other than this information, the viewer was not prepared to evaluate the new medical device. The story did not explain what type of heart valve disease for which it might be used, the symptoms of heart valve disease that might suggest that use of the device might be appropriate, and did not present any information about how often the device successfully resolves the problem, how long it lasts, or any adverse events associated with the use of the device. There was also no discussion of costs.
Although presented as a cutting-edge technology, this type of intervention has been under investigation for many years. This story did little to inform the viewer about the condition or its treatment options. An anecodotal imbalance is created by letting the patient get away – unchallenged – with calling this "an absolute miracle."
Criteria
Not Satisfactory
There was no cost estimate provided for this medical device.
Not Satisfactory
What we learn about benefits in this story are that the use of this procedure reduces time spent in the hospital, the length of the recovery period, and eliminates having the scar associated with an open heart procedure.
However, the story included nothing about the extent to which the medical problems associated with heart valve disease are repaired with this device, how long the repair is expected to be functional, or other benefits that might come from the use of this device.
Not Satisfactory
There were no harms of treatment mentioned.
Not Satisfactory
This story did not really contain much in the way of evidence other than mentioning that about 70 patients had received the medical device. There was no information about the type of valve problem that was treated, or anything about the outcome following surgery. This is really the biggest weakness of the story.
Satisfactory
No overt disease-mongering.
Not Satisfactory
The interviewees were all fans and users of the procedure. The range of sources wasn't diverse.
It would have been beneficial to have someone comment on the difference between the procedures, the types of conditions that may be most amenable to treatment with the experimental medical device, and some more about patients for whom it might be appropriate to consider use of the device.
Not Satisfactory
Although unclear about what exact heart valve problem was being treated, the story compared and contrasted the experience of two family members with the same medical condition treated with different options. The story painted a very positive picture for the use of the medical device vs. open heart surgery but gave no indication that both treatments may be more appropriate for specific categories of patients.
The story provided no indication that there might be medical management options for the treatment of heart valve disease.
Satisfactory
This piece did include a disclaimer at the end that this procedure is done only in a limited number of centers and is investigational at this time.
Not Satisfactory
While the story was about a new medical device being tested to treat heart valve problems, percutaneous valve replacement dates back to the 1960's.
Not Applicable
We can't be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
Total Score: 2 of 9 Satisfactory
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