Henry Kissinger’s experience is one of several positive anecdotes presented in the story.
This article takes an in-depth look at transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a method for replacing narrowed valves in patients too sick or old for surgery that is entering common practice. The piece is well-sourced and includes compelling patient stories. It does a nice job of placing TAVR in its proper historical context. However, the piece had an adulatory tone and lacked important details about the benefits, harms, and costs of the procedure. It is disappointing that in such a lengthy report, there is not a single personal example of a less-than-stellar result.
TAVR is an increasingly mainstream option to treat aortic stenosis, a debilitating and eventually fatal condition (usually of old age) for which the only other option has been open heart surgery. This is an important story about how new technology develops in modern health care. But while it details the twists and turns of TAVR’s past, it seems to assume that somehow the future will be smooth sailing.
We’ll award a Satisfactory here with some reservations. Although the article addresses the cost of the procedure, and in particular of the valve, readers should have been told how the cost compares to conventional surgery, rather than just the bottom line risks for hospitals. Here’s how the story presents it: “It’s a hard proposition when $32,500 goes right out the door to Edwards,” the valve manufacturer, he said. The hospital gets about $40,000 from Medicare, which is fine if there are no complications. But older patients, in their late 80s and 90s, often end up with four-, five- or even seven-day hospital stays. “We could lose $25,000,” he said.”
According to the Healthcare Blue Book, a reasonable charge to the consumer for heart valve surgery is $50,000.
The article mentions several studies and case reports of the benefits of this procedure, but does not share details necessary to evaluate it. The article says “For those who could not have surgery, a valve replacement with TAVR reduced the death rate by 20 percent in the first year.” – 20% from what? Compared to what?
The article also says: “More recent 2015 data from Medtronic indicates that its valve is better than surgery for high-risk patients, resulting in fewer deaths, at least in the first two years. And new data from another large study by Edwards found that patients at intermediate risk did better with the newest version of its valve than would be expected with surgery in the first 30 days, when most deaths occur.”
We would hope to see absolute numbers here, not just percentages. How many fewer deaths compared to surgery? In what way did patients at intermediate risk do better?
The article mentions several risks of the procedure such as stroke risk and paravalvular leak, but hard numbers are missing. How many patients undergoing TAVR or conventional valve surgery suffer strokes? How common is leakage? All the story provides are generalizations: “There is some question about whether the process of inserting the new valves loosens debris that can cause strokes. One large study found a higher stroke rate in patients receiving valves without surgery compared with those receiving valves with surgery. Another large study did not find this effect. The valves also tend to leak slightly around the edges. New designs are ameliorating this problem, but not solving it.”
We’ll reward the story here for at least mentioning some potential risks. But it is disappointing that such a lengthy report includes only one-sided, glowing patient reviews of TAVR. Why is there not a single account of any patient who suffered a stroke or other serious complication?
To the article’s credit, it also raises the issue of limited evidence about the valves’ durability: “For now, evidence of the procedure’s effectiveness exists only for the sickest patients and there are only five years of data on how long the valves last.”
The article speaks of TAVR in glowing terms throughout. It mentions a few studies and notes that at least one of them was large and that they were industry-sponsored but does not provide enough further information to allow us to understand the quality of the evidence: Were these randomized trials? How many subjects were involved? The story provides links to the studies, but there simply aren’t enough details in the text to allow for an informed judgement.
Aortic stenosis is a serious, sometimes life-threatening condition, but the article hypes the situation: “aortic valve disease has risen 35 percent, in large part because more people are living long enough to develop it.” then notes that “more than 8,000 Americans die from the disease annually.” Eight thousand deaths seems like a lot in isolation, but readers would have benefitted from being told it is still only about 1 percent of all heart disease deaths in the U.S.
What’s more, while these catheter-inserted valves are approved only for the sickest patients, the articles leads readers to the conclusion that all patients with aortic stenosis would be better off being treated with these relatively new devices, without waiting to see what happens in trials involving healthier patients.
The article features in-depth reporting with plenty of expert testimony — a rarity in health news today and a delight to these reviewers. It might have been nice to include a source who could better explain some of the harms of TAVR.
The article does explain that surgery is the alternative, but it would have been helpful to provide more concrete numbers (outcomes, cost) to show how patients fare with surgery vs TAVR. The story would have been better if also told readers about drug treatment for milder cases and that some valves can be repaired, rather than replaced.
The story summarizes the approval status of several devices. However, it doesn’t explore important caveats about which patients are eligible for TAVR and implies that all comers who are too sick for surgery are eligible.
This is described nicely — the article goes into depth on the history of the device.
The article certainly goes well beyond any news release.
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 (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Gary Schwitzer
June 24, 2015 at 3:35 pmThe piece reviewed above is part of a series appearing in the New York Times this week.
On his Forbes.com blog, Larry Husten wrote:
Fact Check: NY Times Heart Disease Series Gets It Right – Mostly.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2015/06/24/fact-check-ny-times-heart-disease-series-gets-it-right-mostly/
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