While the story does describe the cost of stenting, it does not provide the cost of the medication for comparison. The story does give the rate of heart attack or death as 19% within 7 years for both the stent and the medication group. Although the study mentions the risk of clotting with drug-coated stents, this is not adequate information on harms. Furthermore, the study does not mention any possible harms of medication. The story adequately describes the design of the current study. The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of heart disease. Furthermore, the story clearly states that this study was done on patients at low risk, that is, those with stable heart disease. The story only quotes one cardiologist not associated with the study and gives no rationale for why he was chosen. (Is it because he's in New York and readily available?) The story could have quoted other clinicians or experts who could have provided some valuable perspective on the impact of this new development on the management of heart disease. The story does mention medication as the alternative to stenting. The story clearly states that stenting is very common in the U.S. The story clearly states that stenting is not a new idea. Because the story quotes the lead author of the study and one physician who is not related to the study, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Heart study: Most angioplasties not needed