[irjustin]

Fair criticism, but I think the point is the public is being mislead to believe that they are equal in all aspects so you should always pick the stent because it is so less invasive.

Personally, 10% vs 13% of overall people who were in the trial is significant and would give me pause. I would trade pain and recuperation for 3% less mortality.

[dmurray]

I'd definitely have a safe but painful surgery for a condition that has a 3% chance of killing me if untreated. I'd also have surgery that had a 3% chance of success for an otherwise terminal condition (if I could find a surgeon willing to operate...)

But 10% vs 13% doesn't feel as significant to me. Maybe this is irrational.

[Aeolun]

If you hear, people with a stent are 30% more likely to die than people who have open heart surgery, does that put it in perspective?

I would personally think a 3% difference in overal mortality is certainly worth a little while recovering.

[irjustin]

I don't think it's irrational at all. It's risk tolerance.

For myself, I believe the pain and anguish is worth the 3%, given all other things equal. Others like yourself, might not.

Maybe I'm the irrational one.

At the end of the day, the point of the article is exactly that - so you can make an informed decision.

I choose to have my 3% back; You get less pain/recovery.

Pre whistleblowing, there was no choice. It was stent 100% and, oversimplified, 3% more people died without having gotten to make that choice because the study was funded by the stent guys. It was decided for them.

[throwaway34241]

>I would trade pain and recuperation for 3% less mortality.

May not only be pain, a relative had open heart surgery and can’t read anymore. Some risk of permanent brain and/or lung damage from surgery itself from strokes or pulmonary embolism (although not sure how that compares long term to stents).

I’d also take into account the percent of remaining life expectancy the recovery period takes up (although if it’s a few months that’s probably less than 3%).

Most worrying was another comment pointed out that lifestyle changes take better in the open heart surgery patients. Dietary intervention is effective for heart disease but most people can’t follow through. So it seems very plausible that some or all of the benefit (or even more than all) could come from essentially torturing people enough to scare them into making a lifestyle change. Which is still a real effect I guess, but some people may be capable of following through without that.

[guelo]

What are the error bars on those percentages? It might not be a significant difference.

[Spooky23]

Results like this are hard to interpret locally. Anything that gets you out of the hospital more quickly is worthwhile... there are any number of hazards in the hospital that are best avoided.