DO HEART STENTS ACTUALLY EASE CHEST PAIN?
According to a study, the procedure does not make a difference in patients with a blocked coronary artery and severe chest pain, writes
APROCEDURE used to relieve chest pain in hundreds of thousands of heart patients each year is useless for many of them, researchers reported last Wednesday.
Their study focused on the insertion of stents, tiny wire cages, to open blocked arteries. The devices are lifesaving when used to open arteries in patients in the throes of a heart attack.
But, they are most often used in patients who have a blocked artery and chest pain that occurs, for example, walking up a hill or going up stairs. Sometimes patients get stents when they have no pain at all, just blockages.
Heart disease is still the leading killer of Americans — 790,000 people have heart attacks each year — and stenting is a mainstay treatment in virtually every hospital. More than 500,000 heart patients worldwide have stents inserted each year to relieve chest pain, according to the researchers. Other estimates are far higher.
Several companies — including Boston Scientific, Medtronic and Abbott Laboratories — sell the devices, and inserting them costs from US$11,000 to US$41,000 (RM46,200 to RM172,200) at hospitals in the United States.
The new study, published in the Lancet, stunned leading cardiologists by countering decades of clinical experience. The findings raise questions about whether stents should be used so often — or at all — to treat chest pain.
Dr William E. Boden, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine, called the results “unbelievable”.
Dr David Maron, a cardiologist at Stanford University, praised the new study as “very well conducted”, but said that it left some questions unanswered. The participants had a profound blockage but only in one artery, he noted, and they were assessed after just six weeks.
“We don’t know if the conclusions apply to people with more severe disease,” Dr Maron said.
“And we don’t know if the conclusions apply for a longer period of observation.”
For the study, Dr Justin E. Davies, a cardiologist at Imperial College London, and his colleagues recruited 200 patients with a profoundly blocked coronary artery and chest pain severe enough to limit physical activity, common reasons for inserting a stent.
All were treated for six weeks with drugs to reduce the risk of a heart attack, like aspirin, a statin and a blood pressure drug, as well as medications that relieve chest pain by slowing the heart or opening blood vessels.
Then, the subjects had a procedure: a real or fake insertion of a stent. This is one of the few studies in cardiology in which a sham procedure was given to controls, who were then compared with patients receiving the actual treatment.
In both groups, doctors threaded a catheter through the groin or wrist of the patient and, with X-ray guidance, up to the blocked artery. Once the catheter reached the blockage, the doctor inserted a stent or, if the patient was getting the sham procedure, simply pulled the catheter out.
Neither the patients nor the researchers assessing them afterward knew who received a stent. Following the procedure, both groups of patients took powerful drugs to prevent blood clots.
The stents did what they were supposed to do in patients who received them. Blood flow through the previously blocked artery was greatly improved.
When the researchers tested the patients six weeks later, both groups said they had less chest pain, and they did better than before on treadmill tests.
But, there was no real difference between the patients, the researchers found. Those who got the sham procedure did just as well as those who got stents.
Cardiologists said one reason might be that atherosclerosis affects many blood vessels, and stenting only the largest blockage may not make much difference in a patient’s discomfort. Those who report feeling better may only be experiencing a placebo effect from the procedure.
“All cardiology guidelines should be revised,” Dr David L. Brown of Washington University School of Medicine and Dr Rita F. Redberg of the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in an editorial published with the new study.
US clinical guidelines say stenting is appropriate for patients with a blocked artery and chest pain who have tried optimal medical therapy, meaning medications like those given to the study patients. But, those guidelines were based on studies in which patients simply said they felt better after having stents inserted.
“It was impressive how negative it was,” Dr Redberg said of the new study.
Since the procedure carries some risks, including death, stents should only be used for people who are having heart attacks, she added.
The idea that stenting relieves chest pain is so ingrained that some experts said they expect most doctors will continue with stenting, reasoning that the new research is just one study.
“Some patients don’t want drugs or can’t take them,” said Dr Davies.
Stenting is so accepted that American cardiologists said they were amazed the ethics boards agreed to a study with a sham control group.
But, in the United Kingdom, said Dr Davies, getting approval for the study was not so difficult. Neither was it difficult to find patients.
“There are many people who are open to research, and if you tell them you are exploring a question, people agree,” he said.
Nonetheless, it took him 3½ years to find the subjects for his study.
Ethics boards at many US hospitals probably would resist, since giving such patients fake procedures “flies in the face of guidelines”, Dr Boden said.
Dr Neal Dickert Jr, a cardiologist and ethicist at Emory University, said he hoped the new stent study would show cardiologists that they needed to do more studies with sham procedures.
“This may turn out to be an important moment,” he said. NYT