This HealthDay story reports on a paper published in the European Heart Journal that looked at the outcomes of a procedure known as catheter ablation for people who have atrial fibrillation.
We liked how the story countered the positive findings with the caveats and complications, which are too often overlooked in news stories about research.
However, the story didn’t clearly explain that this was not a randomized controlled trial–it was essentially a tallying of complication and success rates in a group of people who all had the procedure done. And that’s an important distinction to make, because as one cardiac electrophysiologist columnist pointed out and this systematic review touches upon, there’s a lack of solid trial data on this procedure.
Because this is a very common condition, it will be of high interest to many readers. They deserve to know: What makes this research newsworthy? Is the research solid? Will it change what’s already known about catheter ablation?
The story does mention the procedure is often covered by insurance. But it didn’t discuss the costs without insurance (or to the health care system). Estimates put it at roughly $10,000 for the procedure, and quite a bit more once hospital costs are factored in.
This story does provide a numerical picture of the data analysis. It states: “Ablation was successful in 74 percent of patients, Arbelo said. These patients had no atrial arrhythmias–irregular heart beats–for three to 12 months after the procedure.” This means that nearly three out of four patients benefited in some way by having the surgery, although it was not a permanent solution.
However, the story didn’t mention that the success rate fell to 66% when you considered the entire 12 month period, including the first 3 months.
The story points out the caveats that should be remembered when considering ablation. It explains some of the complications that can occur, and that the procedure may only be a short-term fix.
However, there was definitely a missed opportunity to dig more deeply, and report the scope of the harms as clearly as the benefits. For example, the story didn’t explain 1 out of 10 people had to go back for a repeat procedure during the study. Nor that there were 280 in-hospital complications (7.8%) and 577 complications over the 12 month follow-up (16.3%). Some of the complications were quite serious, including 47 perforations of the surrounding heart tissue.
The story points out that nearly 3,600 patients, aged on average 59 years old, from Europe, the Middle East and North Africa took part in the study. But, it fails to identify that this is actually an observational registry, essentially a description of complication and success rates, rater than a double-blind randomized trial that was evaluating a therapy vs. placebo. This means there were lots of limitations to this research, and those weren’t discussed in the story. Without these details, the story makes the research sound much more conclusive than it really was.
This was a tough call. The story does some things well here: It gives us the prevalence of atrial fibrillation, and explains that this procedure is for people who don’t experience improvement with medications.
But it could have gone a step further, and explained that most people with atrial fibrillation have no symptoms, or the symptoms are well controlled with medication–so catheter ablations are really only considered for a minority of this patient population.
Since it does make that distinction to a degree (that the procedure is reserved for people who can’t control symptoms via medication) we’re rating it satisfactory.
The story does quote two cardiologists unconnected to the study, but fails to disclose possible conflicts of interest among the researchers. For example, the lead researcher has accepted money from Biosense Webster, a company that makes medical products for atrial fibrillation treatments.
The story explains that medication is the first-line treatment: “For those whose atrial fibrillation can’t be controlled with medications, catheter ablation may be recommended.”
We do wish the story had made it clear that few people with atrial fibrillation fall into the group needing ablation.
Catheter ablation is available in most medical centers offering broad cardiac services, but the story didn’t explain that.
The story indicates that the study is new, but it didn’t explain what made it novel–how does this build upon previous research? It implies that it’s the less-than-impressive success rate vs complication rate, but that needs better clarification, if that’s what’s novel here.
Because there is commentary from independent researchers, the story does not appear to rely on the news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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