The story does not mention the cost of stent insertion, which can run into the tens of thousands of dollars. The story describes the main outcome measure — how long subjects could exercise on a treadmill before experiencing pain — and the change in exercise duration — a 28 second improvement after stent insertion versus 12 second improvement after sham surgery. Readers are told that no statistical difference exists between those averages. The story does not mention harms of the procedure, which should be a factor in weighing the risks and benefits of any intervention. The story describes the study’s size and methods and goes into some depth about how the sham procedure can control for placebo effects. Limitations were discussed, as well. The story also provides some critiques from outside sources, including the fact that study subjects, with only one major blockage, do not represent the majority of patients to whom doctors recommend stents. No disease mongering here. It was good to see the story discuss the concerns around over-use of stents. The story quotes one of the study authors and authors of an accompanying commentary in the journal, The Lancet. The reporter also sought comment from stent makers, who were mostly critical of the study — but these potential conflicts were made clear to readers. The story, in describing the study, makes clear that management of angina pain with medication is equally effective in these kinds of patients. The story makes clear that stent insertion is widely available and frequently done. The story makes clear that what is novel about this research is the use of a placebo group whose participants underwent procedures but didn’t receive a stent. The story goes well beyond what is contained in the news release from the host institution, Imperial College.
Study Raises Questions About Stents in Some Heart Patients