2011
DOI: 10.1097/ccm.0b013e318218a045
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pulmonary artery catheters: Evolving rates and reasons for use*

Abstract: We observed a >50% reduction in the rate of pulmonary artery catheter use over 5 yrs. Patient factors predicting pulmonary artery catheter use were illness severity, specific diagnoses, and the need for advanced life support. Nonpatient factors predicting pulmonary artery catheter use were intensive care unit and the attending physician's base specialty.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
45
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 87 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
1
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The prevalence of PAC use in our study was higher than that published previously. In an assessment of trends on PAC use, Koo et al [11] showed the use of PAC in 45% of CS patients compared to the 64% in our registry.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The prevalence of PAC use in our study was higher than that published previously. In an assessment of trends on PAC use, Koo et al [11] showed the use of PAC in 45% of CS patients compared to the 64% in our registry.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Subsequently, randomized clinical trials (RCT) [5,6,7,8,9] and meta-analysis [10] failed to demonstrate any clinical benefit. Since then, its use has progressively declined [11,12]. It is now accepted that the routine use of PAC in critically ill patients is ineffective.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The results of the three efficacy trials failed to detect differences in benefit or harm (including mortality) in the PAC and comparator groups in the study populations. Taken together, the results of these three efficacy trials indicate that, under conditions in which patient selection is narrowly defined and appropriate placement and use of PAC is monitored and promoted, PACs did not lead to harm (49).…”
Section: Interpreting Results Of Efficacy and Effectiveness Studiesmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…In this observational study the PAC was associated with an increased risk of mortality and increased resource use. A recent Canadian multicenter longitudinal randomized study has shown a 50% reduction in the rate of PAC use over 5 years [3] because PAC is invasive and is associated with various complications (infections, arrhythmias, thrombosis and pulmonary artery rupture) and financial costs [4]. The last decade was characterized by a growing interest in innovating, less invasive devices that could be substituted for the PAC.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%