I’m not a medical expert but your hand waving of stents feels off to me. Yes, it’s not surprising that stents can be dangerous, but the alternative is open heart surgery. Which sounds pretty damn risky too.
Is the choice really that simple?
Is the choice really that simple?
They're about $5,000 each.
A couple times per year there is some news report similar to this story.
I have a feeling that, just like hip replacements took decades to find the right combination of materials to not disintegrate or be rejected, we're still researching what to make stents from and when to use them.
The problem is that patients aren't told they're guinea pigs, and stents aren't that reliable. Oh and doctors get to bill a fortune per operation regardless.
Regarding this particular story, rather than be outraged, we should have cardiac experts and statisticians sit down and figure out what's real and what isn't. There is valuable data in there somewhere.
Here's the thing. Every patient is a guinea pig in one way or another. Every medication has side-effects both known and unknown.
But yeah, maybe stents need to be replaced before 3 years or some better materials need to be found, and maybe they are used in situation where they're not really needed.
Still better than bypass surgery which is a very invasive surgery.
My point is not that stents > open heart surgery, but rather that they’re not at all easy to compare.