Who has the information on the latest stent conclusion?

[The Backlash Cometh]

I knew the article was coming because my dad mumbled something about it when he was here visiting. Something about stents not being the answer to relieve back pain for people with heart problems. I admit I didn't read the article, though I caught the title in the paper the other day. I just couldn't muster the concentration needed to read the details. It's still too raw, even though my mother died well over two years ago from a botched stent. So, who has the information, and can you do me the kindness and give me the Cliff notes.

thanks for any help.

[Sweet Freedom]

1. Do you mean the report from the ACC?

try here:
http://www.cardiosource.com/annualmtg/acc07/home.asp?date=03/24/2007

Note that there are tabs for each day of session.

[Sweet Freedom]

2. This?

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20070326/many-stent-procedures-unnecessary?src=RSS_PUBLIC

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Yeah, that would be the one.

If anyone wants to give me their personal interpretations, I'd appreciate it.

From what I understood of it, my mother's operation was unneccesary. They put a stent in her heart just to relieve back pain that was coronary related. Then the doc didn't give her plavacid (sp?) twice a day to compensate for the fact that she was allergic to aspirin. So the stent closed within a couple of weeks. The doctor broke the artery trying to get it open. She died three days later, after he installed a pace maker.

I should have paid closer attention to the faces of the nurses. They were the only tip off that something went wrong. The siblings that knew what was going on, were tightlipped, and to this day, haven't given me a blow by blow detail of what they knew, and when they knew it.

Don't ask why we didn't pursue this legally. I'll just offer that the legal system doesn't get too excited when the awards won't be high.