5 ms·

There's no evidence stents prolong life. The real corruption is that stent operations continue to be done in spite of doctors knowing this.

googamooga 10y ago
They can't prolong life, but they can save life if applied in right time-window after the heart attack. Also they increase quality of life of the patients.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jsight 10y ago
That statement is misleading as stated. There is plenty of evidence that emergency stents due to a heart attack save lives, thus prolonging the life of the person that would have died otherwise. Non-emergency stents are a different question. It seems like there is an increasing body of evidence that they do not prolong life, just as you said.
- Herodotus38 10y ago
  I agree with your response to the poster above, but I'm glad he/she made that post because it is an important point that I didn't see anybody else make. I have no reason to doubt the OP's assertion of corruption in the Russian medicine market, as I have worked with several people who did research in the US and practiced medicine in Russia and have heard similar stories from them. However, the OP's assertion that more stents = more lives saved is not entirely true as you and the above poster point out. They are clearly well studied and known to save lives, reduce long term morbidity from heart failure, etc.. in the setting of STEMI (ST elevation myocardial infarction, in other words a big acute heart attack). However, a large number are placed for angina and many studies have shown that they may not make a difference. There are risks with the procedure of placing them, the issues of having to take blood thinning medications afterwards, and so on. I guess the reason I wanted to comment is to expand this discussion a little because more stents (as the OP wants) in Russia doesn't necessarily mean more lives saved, but it does mean more business for OP. I do not know if there is such a shortage of stents in Russia that emergent catheterization is avoided, if someone knows this to be the case please correct me. Also, I don't want to come off as implying that the OP is corrupt or only in it to make money. Medicine is complex and (at least in my current opinion) probably benefits from a business side seeking to maximize profits through innovation as long as it is countered with health care workers (and I guess federal oversight) scrutinizing things towards the patient's best health to act as a counterbalance.
  - googamooga 10y ago
    Thanks a lot for your very wise and weighted reply. Of course I entered into this business because first of all I wanted to earn some money, otherwise I should donated to charity. And your point that some applications of stents can be useless or even dangerous are also valid, but we should take in consideration the other factor - number of stent operations per 1M of population. Russia is still way back from the value recommended by WHO, which means there are still a lot of people who need stents for live-saving purpose.

googamooga 10y ago

They can't prolong life, but they can save life if applied in right time-window after the heart attack. Also they increase quality of life of the patients.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jsight 10y ago

That statement is misleading as stated. There is plenty of evidence that emergency stents due to a heart attack save lives, thus prolonging the life of the person that would have died otherwise. Non-emergency stents are a different question. It seems like there is an increasing body of evidence that they do not prolong life, just as you said.

Herodotus38 10y ago
I agree with your response to the poster above, but I'm glad he/she made that post because it is an important point that I didn't see anybody else make. I have no reason to doubt the OP's assertion of corruption in the Russian medicine market, as I have worked with several people who did research in the US and practiced medicine in Russia and have heard similar stories from them. However, the OP's assertion that more stents = more lives saved is not entirely true as you and the above poster point out. They are clearly well studied and known to save lives, reduce long term morbidity from heart failure, etc.. in the setting of STEMI (ST elevation myocardial infarction, in other words a big acute heart attack). However, a large number are placed for angina and many studies have shown that they may not make a difference. There are risks with the procedure of placing them, the issues of having to take blood thinning medications afterwards, and so on. I guess the reason I wanted to comment is to expand this discussion a little because more stents (as the OP wants) in Russia doesn't necessarily mean more lives saved, but it does mean more business for OP. I do not know if there is such a shortage of stents in Russia that emergent catheterization is avoided, if someone knows this to be the case please correct me. Also, I don't want to come off as implying that the OP is corrupt or only in it to make money. Medicine is complex and (at least in my current opinion) probably benefits from a business side seeking to maximize profits through innovation as long as it is countered with health care workers (and I guess federal oversight) scrutinizing things towards the patient's best health to act as a counterbalance.
- googamooga 10y ago
  Thanks a lot for your very wise and weighted reply. Of course I entered into this business because first of all I wanted to earn some money, otherwise I should donated to charity. And your point that some applications of stents can be useless or even dangerous are also valid, but we should take in consideration the other factor - number of stent operations per 1M of population. Russia is still way back from the value recommended by WHO, which means there are still a lot of people who need stents for live-saving purpose.