We already knew they didn’t prevent future heart attacks, but doctors still kept doing them. And they’ll still keep doing them now that we know they don’t prevent pain either. They’re not useless at all, if you’re a doctor wanting a new Mercedes.
I dont think anyone was saying stents prevent future heart attacks
They were before the research proved they don’t.
A stent placed in one coronary artery does not confer immunity on a patient from future coronary blockages in other arteries (or even same artery stent was placed) which could result in a heart attack.
I think that I would trust my cardiologist before I would trust a New York Times article.
Having read a fair amount about this, my understanding is that the value of stents is very clear for people who are actively having a heart attack caused by a blockage of a major coronary artery, or people whose angina is unstable. The article itself says “The devices are lifesaving when used to open arteries in patients in the throes of a heart attack”.
My understanding is that the controversy is related to people who have partial blockage of arteries which is stable over time.
This is my understanding as well. Of all the stents placed, what percentage of them are placed in patients who are having a heart attack or who have unstable angina?
This also was a very small study (I believe 200 patients), and they were re-evaluated after only 6 weeks. One study does not a universal conclusion make.
Why is this surprising. America is a capitalist society. It is all about business and making money. Do people really think when they walk into a hospital it is any different than a used car lot? The staff attend meetings on how to boost profits. They cover it by saying that they want to make sure people are getting the best care possible. Hahaha. Priceless.
Re #8
Yes, but not just that. Patients tend to believe strongly that “more medical care is always better”. So there is not much resistance from patients when inappropriate or wasteful medical care is suggested. There may be resistance from insurance companies, but then patients and providers will scream “rationing!”.
And then people are shocked that medical care is so expensive.
My doctor scheduled an ultrasound for me this past week. Without going into details, I wondered if it was really necessary. I stopped by the office and of course the doctor wasn’t in, but I talked to his nurse. She insisted it was important, so I went through with it. Still wondering, though…
Re #10
Your doctor should have explained to you what the ultrasound was looking for, and how the results could affect your medical decisions.
Agree it is a very small study, hardly conclusive of anything. However interesting to speculate about future of treatment for heart disease. I suspect it would be impossible to get such a broader study okayed in US due to ethical issues, howls from MDs/companies with financial interests in stents as a treatment choice.
I asked my wife about this study and she already knew all this about stents. I did not ask her how she knew. They do have a cardiologist who comes into their offices who she talks to all the time.
Seeing how my wife and others worry over their medical recommendations has left me a bit less cynical of the industry, but I understand how our system has allowed the prices to get crazy. People suffering will spend almost anything for the chance to feel better.
Most of you know I had five stents placed the night I had a 100% block on the LAD (the widowmaker) and had a full cardiac arrest. Took the cardiologist three+ hours to place them because I had such a large, long blockage. Normal procedure is well under an hour. (I read the cardiologist’s notes and have the video.) There was no time to do any other procedure.
I wonder where they got the charges for stents in the NYT article; my cardiologist billed $7700 for the stent procedure and was paid $1043.34. My hospital/surgical charges for 14 days in cardiac ICU (including stents and everything else) was $56k.
At the end point used in this study, I hadn’t even been cleared for cardic rehab yet. Still had a visiting nurse and PT coming to the house, and was scheduled for ICD placement. No prior history, female, age 51. Can’t imagine that six weeks out would give an accurate assessment.
Wouldn’t be here without the stents, an outstanding and determined cardiologist, and a son who happened to be home from college and knew CPR.
.
I’m glad I have those stents. 
A 200 patient surgery study is not small, but big. If they couldn’t detect an effect of surgery with a 200 person study, any effect that exists is small. Meanwhile, the side effects of stent surgery are not non-existent. It’s up to stent proponents to show that stents work, and now this excellent study has failed to find any effect at all.
@CountingDown, this study was about stents for people who are not in the middle of a heart attack and do not have unstable angina. It doesn’t refer to your case.
Seems like a case where a medical treatment that can be very helpful to some (e.g. those in the middle of a heart attack or with unstable angina) is being used inappropriately in other situations (e.g. the ones in the study) where it does little or no good (while being expensive and exposing patients to additional risk of the treatment itself).
@CountingDown I hope that you are doing better over time. I know that there is a huge range in terms of how well patients recover after heart attacks and hopefully your relatively young age will help you recover to be in good shape.
Someone I know who had benefited enormously from a organ transplant made an analogy: Back when he and I were in college there were pinball games. If you did really well you could win a free ball or I think occasionally a free game. He thinks of his life after receiving his replacement organ as sort of like his “free game”. He appreciates his “free game” and is trying to enjoy it and do things that generally make the world a better place. Hopefully you and I will like him enjoy our “free game” and make things a bit better.
CF, a 200 patient study for a procedure that is done in a population with a high variability in health etc is tiny.