Center for Medical Consumers

Working to help you make informed decisions

  • Categories

Posts Tagged ‘angioplasty’

When to just say no

Posted by medconsumers on June 10, 2011

Three cheers for the primary care physicians who answered the call to identify the most useless treatments and tests routinely administered by their peers. If you want to protect yourself from unnecessary and often risky medical care, check out the list below. It will help you recognize the circumstances when it is entirely appropriate to just say “no” to your doctor.

Rare is the medical test that is 100% accurate, and anxiety-producing false alarms are far more likely when a test is given to young or symptom-free healthy people at low risk for the condition or disease of interest. More than wasted money is at stake. A false alarm heart test result, for example, often leads to risky invasive procedures like cardiac catheterization and angioplasty. Each has a small risk of death and stroke even when performed at what are perceived to be the best hospitals in the U.S.

Too often we consumers assume that early medical interventions—be it back surgery or antibiotics for sinusitis—will always lead to improvements. Too many of us believe in the “more is better” practice of medicine, for example, the doctor who orders a lot of tests is seen as thorough. Too often, we have no idea whether a frequently administered test has any solid research behind it.

The list below is part of the ongoing “Less is More” series which appeared online first in Archives of Internal Medicine. It was put together by working groups formed under the sponsorship of the National Physicians Alliance, which represents 22,000 physicians and takes no funding from drug or device manufacturers. The evidence to support this list of “don’ts” is based on the research conducted by highly-respected review teams such as the U.S. Preventive Health Services Task Force and the Cochrane Collaboration. Each primary care specialty—internal medicine and family medicine— was tasked with coming up with the top five “don’ts” for the care of adults. The two lists are merged to total seven “don’ts” because of overlap. Tweaked here and there to eliminate medical jargon, this list is largely as it appeared online at the AIM website:

1.Don’t do CT scans or other imaging tests for low back pain within the first six weeks unless red flags are present. Reason: Studies failed to demonstrate that imaging of the lumbar spine before six weeks improves outcomes. Red flags include but are not limited to severe or progressive neurological deficits or when serious underlying conditions such as osteomyelitis are present.

2.Don’t obtain blood chemistry panels [i.e., blood tests] or urinanalyses for symptomless healthy adults. Exceptions: screening for LDL cholesterol and screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in symptomless adults with hypertension.

3.Don’t order annual electrocardiogram or any other cardiac screening tests for symptomless, low-risk patients. Reasons: There is little evidence that the detection of constricted coronary arteries in symptomless people at low risk for heart disease improves health outcomes. False alarms are likely to lead to harm through unnecessary invasive procedures, overtreatment, and misdiagnosis. Potential harms exceed the potential benefit.

4.Don’t use bone density scans to detect osteoporosis in women under age 65 years or men under 70 years with no risk factors. Reasons: not cost effective in younger, low-risk people. Risk factors include but not limited to fractures after age 50 years, prolonged exposures to corticosteroids, dietary deficiencies of calcium or vitamin D, cigarette smoking, alcoholism, thin and small build.

5.Don’t perform Pap tests in women who have had a hysterectomy for benign disease. Reason: there is poor evidence of improved outcomes.

6.Use only generic statins when initiating lipid-lowering drug therapy. Reasons: All statins are effective in decreasing mortality, heart attacks, and strokes when dose is appropriate for LDL cholesterol reduction. Switch to more expensive brand-name statins only if generic statins cause adverse reactions or do not achieve LDL cholesterol goals.

7.Don’t routinely prescribe antibiotics for acute mild to moderate sinusitis unless symptoms (which must include purulent [pus] nasal secretions AND maxillary pain or facial or dental tenderness to percussion) lasts for seven or more days OR symptoms worsen after initial clinical improvement. Reasons: most maxillary sinusitis is due to viral infection that will resolve on its own.

The National Physicians Alliance is to be commended for putting together this list, as well as its stated aims of “improving patients’ access to high-quality care, practicing evidence-based care, advocating for just and cost-effective distribution of finite resources, and maintaining trust by minimizing conflicts of interest.”

Maryann Napoli, Center for Medical Consumers©

Posted in Chronic Conditions, Drugs, Heart, heart surgery, hypertension, Men's Health, Unnecessary tests, Women's Health | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Angioplasty Overuse and Bill Clinton

Posted by medconsumers on February 25, 2010

Bill Clinton’s recent treatment for “chest discomfort” focussed the public’s attention for at least a week on the nation’s most frequently performed (i.e., overused) heart procedure—angioplasty. Yes, propping open a clogged artery with stents will immediately stop the discomfort, as the former president noted in interviews. It’s faster than drugs and the death rate from the procedure itself is low (under 1% in New York). The average cost is $15,000.

But a significant number of people who undergo this procedure each year will do just as well on multiple-drug therapy—the same drugs just about everyone is told to take after angioplasty. This was shown in a landmark trial known as Courage, which involved only people with stable heart disease. When results were published in the 2007 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, they made headlines across the country and stunned many an interventional cardiologist. At the time, researchers estimated that 30% of the people currently receiving angioplasty can just as safely be treated with drugs alone. Quite reasonably, the number of angioplasties would be expected to drop accordingly. But, as the Wall Street Journal reported recently, the 250,000 angioplasties done yearly decreased only in the two years after the 2007 Courage results were published. After that, it was business as usual. And business is the right word as interventional cardiologists make an average annual income of $500,000.

The Wall Street Journal article states, “Sanjay Kaul, a prominent cardiologist and researcher at Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute in Los Angeles, estimates that the U.S. could save $5 billion of the $15 billion it spends on stent procedures each year if all doctors followed Courage’s guidance—that is, putting certain heart patients on generic drugs and turning to stents only if the pains persists.”

What we need now is more public clamor for meaningful informed consent (as opposed to the hospital-generated consent form). How informed are the heart patients who arrive scared at the E.R. with chest discomfort or chest pain? Are they told about the drugs-only option? Is the $500,000-a-year interventional cardiologist the right one to provide the pros and cons of each option? And lastly, are people told beforehand that angioplasty and coronary artery bypass surgery are not cures for heart disease but stopgap measures, as Clinton’s story aptly illustrates. The former president had a quadruple coronary-artery bypass surgery in 2004 and it was an artery newly grafted during that operation to improve blood flow that had closed up.

There’s hope, though, for fans of informed consent. At least one team of researchers is experimenting with novel ways to inform (warn?) the public. The Boston-based Foundation for Informed Medical Decision-Making has developed educational materials that describe the pros and cons of each heart treatment. It is currently being tested in a pilot project aimed at primary care physicians. The decision-making materials are provided to prompt doctors to initiate discussions with their patients at high risk for heart problems. In other words, the program changes the location of where the information is imparted and encourages doctors with no financial stake in the patient’s decision to talk with their patients about treatment options well before symptoms start. Patients are encouraged to discuss their understanding of the educational materials with their primary care physicians. The idea is to be fully informed about treatment options way before the first visit to a heart specialist.

Don’t forget
Lifestyle changes such as smoking cessation can be more important than drugs in reducing the risk of heart disease. Exercise needn’t be more than a 45-minute walk five days a week. Read my 2008 interview with Dr. Steve Blair (“You can be fat and fit”) whose research showed that’s all you need to improve cardio/respiratory fitness. And for the many people who need help recognizing which foods are healthy, there’s the new, slim book by Michael Pollen called Food Rules. A 30-minute read, the book expands Pollen’s initial dictum: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

The country’s only second opinion service for angioplasty: Read this about the Lown Cardiovascular Center.

Maryann Napoli, Center for Medical Consumers(c)

Share This Article

Posted in Heart, heart surgery, Unnecessary tests | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Heart surgery 2nd opinion center

Posted by medconsumers on September 22, 2009

For years, we have been reporting the overuse of the coronary artery-opening procedure called angioplasty, aka percutaneous coronary intervention. About one million people in the U.S. undergo this procedure annually; despite the fact that well-designed clinical trials proved that many are in non-emergency situations and can be treated just as effectively with the multiple drug therapy. These are the same drugs, by the way, that most people will be told to take after they’ve had an angioplasty. The procedure, done in non-emergency situations, has a death rate of at least 0.63%.

Lown Cardiovascular Center, Brookline, Massachusetts is the place to go if you want a second opinion about the necessity of angioplasty or coronary bypass surgery. Long-time readers may recognize the name of cardiologist Thomas Graboys, MD, of the Lown Cardiovascular Center, who was frequently quoted in HealthFacts over the years, expressing concern that angioplasty had become a cash cow for many hospitals. In one memorable interview, he said that many symptomless people are scared into undergoing angioplasty after “failing” a stress test and told they are sitting on a “time bomb.” Such people, he said, could have been safely treated with daily aspirin and avoided the procedure.

Dr. Graboys, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, first came to our attention in 1992 when he co-authored a seminal study showing that angioplasty can be safely deferred in many people who have been told that the procedure is urgently needed. This and many other studies he co-authored over the years led him to recommend a second opinion when a cardiac catheterization is advised because this diagnostic procedure puts people on the proverbial conveyer belt to having an angioplasty or coronary bypass surgery. Sadly, Dr. Graboys is no longer with the Lown Cardiovascular Center. He was forced into premature retirement in 2006 due to Parkinson’s disease and dementia. He wrote a book about the experience called Life in the Balance.

Visit the Lown Cardiovascular Center Web site to see what a second opinion involves and to read the bios of the six cardiologists on the staff and no cardiovascular surgeons. Let us know if there’s a similar center in your area.

Maryann Napoli,Center for Medical Consumers(c)

Share This Article

Posted in Heart, heart surgery, Men's Health, Women's Health | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Most Recent New York State Reports on Cardiac Surgery Outcomes

Posted by medconsumers on July 1, 2009

Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (PCI) in New York State
The per-hospital, per-surgeon rate of PCI, aka angioplasty, coronary-artery-opening procedures, performed in New York State hospitals from 2005 through 2007. Read latest report as of April 2010.

Adult Cardiac Surgery in New York State
The per-hospital, per surgeon rate of coronary artery bypass graft surgery and cardiac valve procedures performed in New York State hospitals from 2004 through 2008.

Read the full report for coronary-artery bypass graft surgery and cardiac valve procedures. Updated as of December 2010.

Posted in Heart, heart surgery, surgery | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Drug-Coated Stent No Riskier Than Bare-Metal Stent, But…

Posted by medconsumers on June 1, 2009

Drug-coated stents, intended to keep coronary arteries from closing up again, have been under suspicion for causing harm to people years after they had an artery-opening procedure. In earlier studies, the powerful drugs used to coat the tiny wire-mesh cylinders known as stents, were linked to a slightly higher rate of death and potentially fatal blood clots. A new study of Swedish people who were implanted with either a bare-metal stent or a drug-coated stent appears to exonerate the latter.

While this is good news for people who already had a drug-coated stent implanted, it should not distract from the fact that too many Americans continue to undergo artery-opening procedures for non-emergency heart conditions that can be just as successfully treated with drugs alone.

The Swedish study was led by Stefan K. James, MD, Uppsala University Hospital, and published last month in The New England Journal of Medicine. It is based on the information reported to a nationwide registry of all people in Sweden implanted with either a bare-metal or drug-coated stent between 2003 and 2006 (nearly 48,000). Registry studies represent real-world care; whereas clinical trials are likely to deliver what is thought of as exceptionally good care, i.e., highly experienced surgeons at academic teaching hospitals operating on patients with the best prognoses.

The Swedish study found that the 1- to 5-year results from the registry patients were the same, regardless of the type of stent implanted. There was only one advantage to the drug-coated stent. The treated artery is less likely to become constricted again (restenosis). This advantage, however, was slim. Dr. James and colleagues described it this way, “The rate of restenosis at one year was low for both types of stents and was 1.5 percentage points lower with drug-coated stents than with the bare-metal stents.”
Dr. James was asked by e-mail who is an appropriate candidate for a stent, given the fact that researchers now know that a constricted artery does not indicate the location of a future heart attack. “You are correct,” he responded. “The use of the drug-coated stent should be reserved for patients at high risk for restenosis, such as diabetics.” Dr. James explained that there is also a role for drug-coated stents for people with long and very narrow constrictions, less than 3mm in diameter, in the coronary arteries.

The Swedish study illustrates the importance of following people for years after a surgical procedure to see how they fare. Earlier research from the Swedish registry, also published in The New England Journal of Medicine, indicated that people implanted with drug-coated stents had a 30% higher mortality rate. This landmark study, published in 2005, alerted doctors for the first time that the drugs used to coat the stents were causing a slightly increased risk of death and potentially fatal blood clots. It generated attention around the world and many cardiovascular surgeons changed their practice accordingly. Now surgeons start their patients on Plavix prior to surgery and continue the drug long after implantation of a drug-coated stent.

Bottom Line: Stents were first introduced to stop the high rate of restenosis that occurred after a coronary artery-opening procedure, also known as angioplasty. When it was discovered that tissue growth around the implanted stent also caused restenosis, the drug-coated stent was introduced. Some stents are coated with paclitaxel, an anti-cancer drug that has anti-inflammatory effects and others with sirolimus, an immunosuppressive drug. When the 2005 Swedish registry study indicated that the drugs used to coat the stent increased the risk of dangerous blood clots, Plavix, was introduced into the mix. Plavix (generic name: clopidogrel), heavily promoted on TV, has its own risks, primarily stomach or intestinal bleeding and ulcers of the stomach or intestines.

For decades, people have been told that large constrictions in the coronary artery signal future heart attacks which must be prevented by an immediate artery-opening procedure called angioplasty. This hypothesis was disproved 3 years ago by two landmark trials.  Many, if not most, of the one million or so Americans who undergo angioplasty each year (with or without stents) can be treated just as successfully with the same multiple-drug regimen advised for just about everyone after angioplasty.

The exception: People in the midst of a heart attack are appropriate candidates for angioplasty. Unfortunately, about one-third of all heart attack patients do not receive artery-opening treatment within the recommended 12 hours after the first symptoms of a heart attack.

More Information About the Two Landmark Trials:
Heart attack patients who did not receive the recommended treatment in time are represented in the federally-funded Occluded Artery Trial (OAT). This trial, published in 2006 in The New England Journal of Medicine, randomly assigned people who were in stable condition 3 to 28 days after a heart attack to have either an artery-opening procedure with stenting plus multiple-drug therapy or multiple-drug therapy alone. After 3 to 5 years, the people given multiple-drug therapy alone did just as well as the people who underwent an artery-opening procedure plus drugs.

The OAT found no benefit to opening a blocked artery after the heart attack patient is stabilized. The procedure “should be reserved only for certain patients such as those who are unstable or continue to have chest pain following a heart attack,” according to an OAT researcher. See 2006 press release.

In 2007, another landmark trial, known as COURAGE [Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation], produced results similar to those of OAT for people with stable heart disease. The people in this trial had angina (average 10 episodes a week) for about two years before they entered the trial; most had hypertension, over one-third had had a heart attack.  In short, they were at very high risk and were highly symptomatic for a long time prior to the start of this trial.  A five-year follow-up showed that those who were randomly assigned to have angioplasty had the same risk of heart attack and death as those who were randomly assigned to multiple drug therapy.

Maryann Napoli, Center for Medical Consumers© June 2009

Share This Article

Posted in Heart, heart surgery | Tagged: , , , , , , | Comments Off on Drug-Coated Stent No Riskier Than Bare-Metal Stent, But…

Drug-eluting Stent

Posted by medconsumers on October 1, 2006

A Failed Solution to an Iatrogenic Problem

The long-term safety of drug-releasing stents implanted during angioplasty has been called into question. These tiny wire-mesh tubes emitting low doses of a powerful drug are now the predominant means of propping open a constricted coronary artery in the U.S and many other countries. Called drug-eluting stents by their makers, they show a slightly increased mortality and a higher rate of serious adverse events in longer follow-ups of trials in which participants were implanted with either a drug-eluting or an uncoated stent.

This was announced at the World Congress of Cardiology 2006 held last month in Barcelona, Spain and reported worldwide by UPI and other wire services. The findings have huge implications for the estimated 800,000 Americans who have had a drug-eluting stent implanted and for the multi-billion dollar business that artery-opening has become.

At the Barcelona meeting cardiologist Salim Yusuf, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, gave “a thundering indictment” of artery-opening procedures, according to the cardiology Web site, www.theHeart.org. “The whole field of angioplasty has been led astray by a preoccupation with restenosis [re-narrowing of the artery after angioplasty], for which study after study has shown no prognostic value. We’re chasing problems that are iatrogenic that naturally would not exist in people. We’ve had a perverse financial incentive on the practice of cardiology. It is time to stop and reevaluate.” (That angioplasty* and bypass surgery are not very effective in preventing future heart attacks was explored in the April 2006 HealthFacts “Dramatic Rise in Cardiac Procedures, But No Drop in Heart Attack Rate.)

Dr. Yusuf’s point was lost in the ensuing media coverage of the serious adverse events that showed up in the longer follow-ups—two to four years—of people given drug-eluting stents in clinical trials that compared them with people given uncoated stents. All were company-sponsored trials by Boston Scientific (Taxus stent) or Johnson & Johnson (Cypher stent).

Two separate analyses of the combined results of these trials were described at the Barcelona meeting by Edoardo Camenzind, MD, University Hospital in Geneva, and Alain J. Nordmann, MD, University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland. “What we saw in the long term was more deaths and MIs [heart attacks] in the groups with the first-generation drug-eluting stents,” said Dr. Carmenzind.

Dr. Nordmann’s analysis showed that the people implanted with a drug-eluting stent did better at one year, but there was “a trend toward increased mortality” with drug-eluting stents at up to four years of follow-up. People implanted with a Cypher stent fared worse than those with a Taxus stent in this analysis. They had a higher rate of non-cardiac mortality and serious adverse events than the people with a Taxus stent. Within two days of the Barcelona meeting, Boston Scientific and Johnson & Johnson each released results of one trial claiming safety for its stent and advantages over the uncoated stent. This hasty release of data was, no doubt, intended to counter the negative press from Barcelona.

Shortly thereafter, Boston Scientific did an about-face. The company announced by way of The Wall Street Journal that its Taxus stent does in fact show a slightly higher rate of “late stent thrombosis [potentially fatal blood clots].” The announcement was based on the company’s own reanalysis of its trials. Stent thrombosis should not come as news to Johnson & Johnson because the FDA sent a warning letter to doctors about it months after the Cypher stent was approved in 2003. The following year, Boston Scientific had to recall 99,200 stent systems because of a defect that made it hard, in some cases, to deflate the balloon used to implant the stent. The defect was linked to three deaths and 47 serious injuries.

Stents were introduced after studies showed that about 40% of the coronary arteries close up again (restenosis) in the 6-12 months after angioplasty. This procedure involves the threading of a catheter to the constricted section of a coronary artery and then inflating a balloon at the tip of the catheter to compress the plaque or fatty deposits against the lining of the artery. The introduction of stents, mounted on the balloon catheter, was the intended solution to restenosis. Once the balloon is inflated, the stent expands and is pressed permanently into the inner wall of the constricted portion of the artery.

But physicians found that tissue growth around the stent caused restenosis. Drug-eluting stents were developed to prevent this problem. The Taxus stent emits paclitaxel, an anti-cancer drug that has anti-inflammatory effects. The Cypher stent emits sirolimus, an immunosuppressive drug. These stents reduce but do not eliminate the possibility of restenosis. Once implanted, people go on anti-clotting drugs (aspirin, Plavix) for the rest of their lives.

Bottom Line:
Though constricted coronary arteries are not the cause of future heart attacks (as outlined in April 2006 HealthFacts), a lucrative industry has built up around opening them. Because restenosis is common after angioplasty, drug-eluting stents were approved by the FDA in 2003 to reduce the risk. Approval was based on company-sponsored trials that lasted 6-24 months and an agreement that participants will continue to be followed to five years. The companies did not have to prove that their stents were better than drugs in reducing heart attacks. Instead, they merely had to prove drug-eluting stents are better than uncoated stents in avoiding restenosis. Longer follow-up data from these trials formed the basis of two new analyses that found potentially fatal blood clots are not as rare as previously thought. These analyses, however, remain to be confirmed as they have not yet been published.

In his role as discussant at the Barcelona meeting, Dr. Yusuf, the Canadian cardiologist who delivered the thundering indictment of his profession, summarized the situation: “With about six million of these procedures done [worldwide], isn’t it a terrible indictment of our system that we don’t know the safety of these things?”

What to do:

  • If you have had a stent (or other type of medical device) implanted, get the name of the manufacturer, the type of stent, and model number. Keep this information in your personal records in case a defect is reported in the future.
  • If you had a drug-eluting stent implanted, consult your cardiologist about the need for anti-clotting drugs and the danger of stopping them. Last year the FDA issued a warning that it had received an unspecified number of reports of heart attack, stent thrombosis, and death that occurred in people “who received a drug-eluting stent and then stopped taking their antiplatelet [anti-clotting] medication prematurely.” Some were told by their practitioners to stop the medication prior to undergoing a surgical or dental procedure, others stopped on their own.
  • Web casts from the September 2-5 Barcelona meeting can be accessed at the World Congress of Cardiology www.worldcardio2006.org.

*Angioplasty is lifesaving for those who receive the procedure while in the midst of a heart attack.

Maryann Napoli, Center for Medical Consumers ©
October 2006

Posted in Heart, heart surgery | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Angioplasty: No Effect on Future Heart Attack

Posted by medconsumers on April 1, 2006

Dramatic Rise in Cardiac Procedures, But Heart Attack Rate Stays Constant

Over the last 10 to 15 years there has been a dramatic increase in cardiac procedures in the U.S. and Canada. Coronary artery bypass surgery and artery-opening procedures are intended to restore blood flow to the heart in order to prevent heart attacks. One might reasonably expect each country’s rate of heart attack to show an equally dramatic decline. But the heart attack rate stayed relatively constant in both countries. The findings came from two studies, one in the U.S. and one in Canada, published in the January 24 issue of the journal Circulation. They appear to validate the longstanding, but widely ignored, research indicating that today’s cardiac surgeons are still operating on an outmoded understanding of heart disease.

Each country’s study drew on claims data from its publicly funded Medicare program to determine the cardiac procedure rate. Medicare in the U.S. primarily covers people age 65 and over, while Medicare in Canada covers everyone, though the study looked solely at adults in Ontario. At the start of the study period, Canada’s rate of cardiac procedures was lower than that of the U.S., but both countries showed similar massive increases. The researchers determined the heart attack rate by looking at the claims submitted by people hospitalized for a heart attack during a 15-year period in the U.S. study and a 10-year period in the Canadian study.

“There are a couple of different messages for consumers in our study,” said F. Lee Lucas, PhD, Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center, the lead author of the American study. “The increased rates [of bypass surgery and artery-opening procedures] over time likely mean that doctors are quicker to intervene for milder and milder symptoms, particularly in white men,” she noted in a telephone interview. Dr. Lucas explained that the data collected in her study did not allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the percentage that might have been unnecessary.

David Waters, MD, who was not involved in either study, was less reticent about their implications. “We can assume that that these procedures are not influencing the heart attack rate, and some may be unnecessary,” he said in a telephone interview. Dr. Waters is chief of cardiology at San Francisco General Hospital and professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco.

The two studies also indicate that an outmoded understanding of heart disease still dominates the way it is treated. According to the so-called new view of heart disease, a major constriction in the coronary artery is not where a future heart attack will occur. “There’s lots of data to show that opening a narrowed artery will not reduce your chances of having a heart attack,” said Dr. Waters, citing the one exception. “If, however, a person is having a heart attack, and that person has an artery-opening procedure while having the heart attack, there is good evidence that this will reduce the risk of dying of that heart attack.” In other words, the procedure will have no effect on future heart attacks.

The old model for the development of a heart attack is based on heart disease as a plumbing problem. The metaphor, which is still served up to the public to explain heart attacks, goes like this: A coronary artery slowly becomes narrowed with plaque in much the same way a pipe becomes corroded with rust and other gunk. In time, the artery becomes so constricted that blood flow to the heart is eventually shut off with a blood clot.

New Mechanism for a Heart Attack

The new understanding of heart disease is far more complex and is based on the observation that the vast majority of heart attacks do not occur in the portion of the artery that is most obstructed. Instead, most heart attacks occur where plaque breaks off and a clot forms over the area that can abruptly stop blood flow to the heart. In this scenario, the plaque is soft, symptomless, and would not be seen as an obstruction to blood flow. Heart disease is an inflammatory process by which the coronary arteries are subjected to a constant cycle of irritation, injury, healing and reinjury that makes the plaque likely to rupture. The solutions are the standard prevention advice: stop smoking, and take drugs to reduce clotting, inflammation, blood pressure and cholesterol.

If the new view of heart disease has been around for more than a dozen years, why hasn’t this changed the way it is treated? Do heart surgeons know about it? “The interventional cardiologists know about it, but they ignore it,” answered cardiologist Thomas Graboys, MD, in a telephone interview. “A new breed of over-trained cardiologists has now flooded into the community,” said Dr. Graboys, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and president of the Lown Foundation. It is no longer the large urban-based academic medical centers that come overstocked with interventional cardiologists. They have now come to the community hospital near you. And there is a strong financial incentive for them to look for constricted arteries and open them. “Economics drive the train,” said Dr. Graboys. “The starting salary of an interventional cardiologist is $300,000-400,000 a year, and for one that has been in practice three years, it is $500,000 to $600,000.”

Dr. Waters also sees money as the driving force. “If you have chest pain and the cardiologist you see does coronary angiography (see sidebar below) and that pays for his kids to go to college; well, are you are more likely to wind up with that procedure?” He advises, “Get a second opinion from a cardiologist who is not in the same building, the same group, or the same hospital as the first opinion cardiologist.” Dr. Waters also suggests that people give careful thought to the type of cardiologist chosen for a second opinion. There are, he explained, regular cardiologists who prescribe drugs; interventional cardiologists who do cardiac catheterizations, artery-opening procedures and stenting; and cardiovascular surgeons who perform coronary bypass surgery. The received opinion will likely mirror the doctor’s area of expertise.

The number of people undergoing artery-opening procedures continues to rise not only because they are huge money-makers but they are also very effective at relieving the severe chest pain of angina, which is a common symptom of heart disease. They are virtually useless, however, in stopping the progress of the disease itself. “The public is looking for a magic bullet,” observed Dr. Graboys, who offered this advice to people who are not in an acute situation. “Go to a non-hospital-based doctor in the community. A well-trained internist can take care of the lion’s share of people with coronary heart disease. The vast majority of people do well on medication—cholesterol-lowering drugs, antihypertensives, low-dose aspirin.”

Still, clogged arteries cannot be good. Won’t they eventually close off? “The body performs its own bypass,” explained Dr. Graboys, describing what is often seen during cardiac catheterizations. “The body forms new blood vessels around the constricted area, thus restoring blood flow.”

Dr. Graboys knows whereof he speaks; he is a cardiologist at the Lown Cardiovascular Center in Brookline, Massachusetts, a second opinion consultation center affiliated with Brigham and Women’s Hospital. For over two decades, the Center has helped many people avoid unnecessary surgery. Long before others made this connection, Dr. Graboys began to see the stress test and cardiac catheterization—two diagnostic procedures—as somewhat akin to a conveyer belt that funnels people to an artery-opening procedure or bypass surgery. A constricted artery is discovered, often several (not at all unusual in anyone over age 55), and the person goes on to what doctors call “a cascade of interventions”. In fact, the odds are so high that a cardiac catheterization will set people on to this course of events that Dr. Graboys advises a second opinion before agreeing to it.

A second opinion is all the more important given that Dr. Lucas, the lead author of the American study, said her data suggest that the threshold for deciding who is a candidate for an artery-opening procedure has been lowered over time. “Rates of bypass surgery have leveled off. This is due to the fact that bypass surgery is clearly the more invasive procedure requiring prolonged anesthesia and use of a heart/lung machine, etc., but with artery-opening procedures you’ve got the person in the cath lab, and you’ve got that catheter in there already; it’s tempting to go ahead and do the procedure, so the threshold for performing the procedure might be lower than it would be for bypass surgery,” Dr. Lucas explained. “Many people who have had it done firmly believe that it saved their lives, but the benefit of most procedures is [solely] control of symptoms.”

What does all this mean to the average older person who suspects that one day he or she might wind up in an emergency room with chest pains? To Dr. Waters, the people who show up in the emergency room with severe chest pain are the ones most likely to require an artery-opening procedure. “The person I worry about is the person who goes to the doctor with a vague symptom and finds himself with a doctor who is not skilled at distinguishing the important symptoms of a heart disease from other symptoms.”

Asked for an example of a vague symptom that an unskilled physician might mistakenly identify as heart-related: “I was recently playing catch with my dog and now have shoulder pain,” he responded, suggesting that this could be enough to start the cascade of interventions. It is, in fact, common for symptom-free people to be told to have a stress test and this alone can start the cascade.

The cascade may be worth it, if all these cardiac procedures were lifesaving, but so far proof is lacking. “There is no evidence to show that artery-opening procedures will prolong life,” said Dr. Graboys, citing the exception of a person in the midst of a heart attack. “Although these procedures are good at alleviating the heart-related chest pain called angina, so too are drugs and lifestyle changes.” Dr. Graboys continued, “Data show that people with angina can be treated successfully with medicines and lifestyle changes like stress reduction, regular exercise, smoking cessation, and treatment of risk factors like high cholesterol and high blood pressure.”

For more information on different types of angioplasty, see below.

The U.S. study led by F.L. Lucas, PhD, was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute of Aging. The Canadian study led by David A. Alter, MD, PhD, was supported in part by a grant by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

Maryann Napoli, Center for Medical Consumers ©
April, 2006


Cardiac Procedures Explained

Cardiac catheterization is a general term for a group of procedures involving a thin tube (catheter) inserted into a blood vessel in the groin or arm. The catheter is threaded up to the coronary arteries andpositioned either in the chambers of the heart or at the arteries supplying the heart. Once the catheter is in place, the doctor can inject a special dye or fluid that is visible by x-ray. This produces motion x-ray pictures called an angiogram, which are used to diagnosed the health of the coronary arteries. Other names for cardiac catheterization are coronary angiography and coronary arteriography.

This diagnostic technique becomes therapeutic once the doctor decides to widen a constricted artery in another procedure called angioplasty. This can be done in several ways. The plaque can be pressed against the walls of a constricted artery with an inflated balloon at the tip of the catheter. In the currently most popular version of angioplasty, tiny wire cages called stents are used to destroy the obstruction and keep the constricted artery open. In the new study by Dr. Lucas and colleagues, artery-opening procedures were grouped under the name of percutaneous coronary interventions.

Posted in Heart, heart surgery, surgery | Tagged: , , , , | Comments Off on Angioplasty: No Effect on Future Heart Attack