Study finds angioplasty dangerous, waste of money
If you want proof that surgery is a cash cow with virtually ZERO health benefits whatsoever, look no further than the increasingly popular, artery-clearing surgery, angioplasty.
The benefits of this surgery are a best unproven, and at worst downright deadly.
In three to five cases out of 100, the procedure itself triggers a potentially deadly heart attack. In one to two cases out of 100, the patient doesn’t leave the operating room alive. And in more than half of the cases, the blockage cleared by the procedure soon returns.
And yet, angioplasty remains one of the more common surgical procedures out there. (Could it be because angioplasty and bypass surgery are a $16 billion-a-year business for doctors and hospitals?)
Here’s the real kicker: A new study has revealed that there was no significant difference in the health status of angioplasty patients, and patients who’d undergone non-surgical drug-based treatments for artery blockage. Any potential benefits disappear within three years, sending the patients back to the operating table for this risky procedure time and again.
Dr. William S. Weintraub, the cardiology chief of Delaware’s Christiana Health Care System, said that for many heart patients, angioplasty – also called “percutaneous coronary intervention” (PCI) – can be delayed indefinitely in favor of drug treatments.”
This is no shock to me, of course. Recently, I’ve wrote to you about an American Medical Association study that recommended six months of “vitamin therapy” to help people reduce the need to repeat the “roto-rooter” technique of angioplasty to unclog heart arteries. This would be a “prescription dose” of folate. So if it could work to keep clogged arteries at bay after the surgery, the same regimen could have applications pre- surgery as well.
While I’m all for the use of folic acid instead of drugs or surgery, there is one part of this recommendation that doesn’t sit well with me.
When the journals talk about “prescription strength” folate, they’re making a not-so-subtle attempt to capture the market on this nutrient for druggists, the pharmaceutical industry, and doctors.
And this is the only real problem that I have with Weintraub’s suggestion – that the promotion of yet more drug therapy further empowers Big Pharma. Think it’s crass to view something like heart surgery in economic terms? Well Weintraub’s study included a cost-benefit analysis. His conclusion: “PCI adds about $10,000 without any significant gain in year of survival or quality of life.”
In fact, Weintraub’s study found that the cost of one year of life added by way of an angioplasty procedure varied from $150,000 to $300,000. If drug therapies can be both safer and more cost effective – even I would have to take the pragmatic view of things and back the drug therapy.
For now, I’m happy to see that at least some of my colleagues have wised up to the fact that angioplasty, or PCI, or whatever name you choose to call it, may not be the best solution for blocked arteries.
“We have justified angioplasty for years by saying it is of great benefit to patients,” Weintraub said. “This study shows that no survival benefit and shows that the benefit in regard to symptom relief is temporary; medical therapy should be considered for all patients with stable angina, unless they have severe pain when diagnosed.”
Amen to that, Dr. Weintraub. Welcome to my side of the argument. Pretty nice over here, don’t you think?
