text_1: To Inspect the Heart, Some Doctors Now Start at the Wrist
text_2: This is an engaging and important enterprise story that explained a number of important issues to be factored in when considering medical interventions. It also nicely highlights the tension that exists in the development of new and presumably less invasive approaches to cardiac catheterization and angioplasty. It’s refreshing to still find 1,600-word stories that go into such detail. It is clear from the story that:  Cardiologists are not of one mind about the value or benefit of doing cardiac catheterizations thorugh the radial artery in the wrist as opposed to the femoral artery in the groin. Different physicians value patient comfort differently. Different physicians may be more comfortable with, and better with, certain procedures. However what was lacking from this story was an examination of the overall success rate of the intended procedure. While patient comfort surely has value, procedure outcome is vital. We never learned any data about whether the actual goal of opening an artery is any better one way or another. Interestingly, the cited meta analysis is only partially acknowledged. While a trend was noted toward an advantage to the radial artery approach (in terms of bleeding and procedural outcome), the authors concluded a large randomized trial is necessary to determine the true value of the approach. And that wasn’t mentioned in the story. Overall, though, the story delivers a clear picture of why patients need to have conversations with their caregivers about the risks and benefits of the various options available for their treatment. Being aware that there is often not a single answer to questions about the course of action is an important step towards making decisions that will get you the care that is best for you. The online version also included helpful graphics and a video.