Pulmonary artery catheterization in patients with cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Cardiogenic shock carries high morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this review was to determine the safety and efficacy of pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC) in adult patients hospitalized with cardiogenic shock. SOURCE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing PAC vs no PAC in cardiogenic shock. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and grey literature. We screened articles, abstracted data, and evaluated risk of bias in duplicate. We pooled data using a random-effects model and evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework. Outcomes of interest were mortality, length of stay, and procedural complications. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified 19 eligible observational studies (≥ 2,716,287 patients) and no randomized controlled trials; 14 studies were at high risk of bias (lack of adjustment for prognostic variables and/or co-interventions). When pooling adjusted results, PAC was associated with improved survival to hospital discharge (relative risk [RR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.91, I2 = 98%; very low-quality evidence) and at longest available follow-up (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.87; I2 = 99%; very low-quality evidence). Unadjusted length of stay was 3.5 days longer (95% CI, 1.49 to 5.54; I2 = 100%; very low-quality evidence) with PAC. Procedural complications were inconsistently reported. CONCLUSIONS: Very low-quality observational evidence suggests PAC use in patients with cardiogenic shock is associated with lower mortality. Overall, these results support consideration of PAC for hemodynamic assessment in cardiogenic shock. Prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to further characterize the role of PAC in this population.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Le choc cardiogénique entraîne une morbidité et une mortalité élevées. Le but de cette revue était de déterminer la sécurité et l'efficacité de l'utilisation d'un cathétérisme de l'artère pulmonaire (CAP) chez des patients adultes hospitalisés en choc cardiogénique. SOURCES: Nous avons réalisé une revue systématique et une méta-analyse d'études observationnelles et d'études randomisées contrôlées comparant l'utilisation vs la non-utilisation de CAP pour le traitement d'un choc cardiogénique. Nous avons effectué des recherches dans les bases de données MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL et dans la littérature grise. Nous avons examiné les articles, résumé les données et évalué le risque de biais à deux reprises. Nous avons regroupé les données à l'aide d'un modèle à effets aléatoires et évalué la qualité des données probantes en nous appuyant sur le système GRADE. Les issues d'intérêt étaient la mortalité, la durée de séjour et les complications procédurales. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Nous avons identifié 19 études observationnelles admissibles (≥ 2 716 287 patients) et aucune étude randomisée contrôlée; 14 études comportaient un risque élevé de biais (absence d'ajustement sur les variables pronostiques et/ou les interventions concomitantes). En regroupant les résultats ajustés, le CAP a été associé à une meilleure survie jusqu'au congé de l'hôpital (risque relatif [RR], 0,77; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 0,64 à 0,91, I2 = 98 %; données probantes de très faible qualité) et jusqu'au point de suivi disponible rapporté le plus lointain dans le temps (RR, 0,72; IC 95 %, 0,60 à 0,87; I2 = 99 %; données probantes de très faible qualité). La durée de séjour non ajustée était 3,5 jours plus longue (IC 95 %, 1,49 à 5,54; I2 = 100 %; données probantes de très faible qualité) avec un CAP. Les complications procédurales n'étaient par rapportées de manière uniforme. CONCLUSION: Des données observationnelles de très faible qualité suggèrent que l'utilisation d'un CAP chez des patients en choc cardiogénique est associée à une réduction de la mortalité. Dans l'ensemble, ces résultats suggèrent de considérer le CAP pour l'évaluation hémodynamique en cas de choc cardiogénique. Des études cliniques randomisées prospectives sont nécessaires pour mieux caractériser le rôle du CAP dans cette population.

Costs of surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation in Ontario, Canada from 2006 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines currently recommend concomitant surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with AF undergoing cardiac surgery. However, a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed no significant difference in mortality or stroke in patients who underwent surgical AF ablation compared with those who did not (moderate-quality evidence). METHODS: We estimated the Ontario-wide costs of surgical AF ablation between 2006 and 2017 using data from a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, estimates of case volumes from Ontario Health Insurance Plan fee codes, the ongoing left atrial appendage occlusion study III trial (NCT01561651), institutional costs from large academic centers in Ontario, as well as professional fees based on the Ontario fee schedule. Device costs were obtained from Canadian industry data with expert input. RESULTS: We estimated the average extra cost of surgical AF ablation at $4,287 CAD (95% CI $4,113-4,619) per patient. Procedural costs (equipment costs and physician remuneration) comprise 82.2% of this, while smaller portions relate to the increased need for pacemaker (3.9%) and additional hospital length of stay (13.9%). Approximately 2,391 patients underwent surgical AF ablation between 2006 and 2017, corresponding to an estimated $10.2 million in incremental cost during that time span. CONCLUSION: Ontario taxpayers spend significant financial resources on surgical ablation of AF, a procedure lacking high-quality evidence demonstrating benefit in reducing mortality or stroke. Further large prospective studies examining clinically important outcomes are needed to justify its routine use in patient care and to guide allocation of healthcare funds.

Medical characteristics of the oldest old: retrospective chart review of patients aged 85+ in an academic primary care centre.

BACKGROUND: The population aged 85 + - the "oldest old" - is now the fastest growing age segment in Canada. Although existing research demonstrates high health services utilization and medication burden in this population, little clinically derived evidence is available to guide care. This is a descriptive study in a primary care context seeking to describe the most common health conditions and medications used in the "oldest old". METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all family practice patients aged 85+ (N = 564; 209 males, 355 females) at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Canada. Electronic medical records were reviewed for all current chronic conditions and medication prescriptions, and then stratified by sex and age subgroup (85-89, 90-94, 95+) for descriptive analysis. RESULTS: On average, patients experienced 6.4 concurrent chronic conditions and took 6.8 medications. Most conditions were related to cardiovascular (79%) and bone health (65%). Hypertension (65%) was the most common condition. Bone-related conditions (e.g. osteoarthritis, osteoporosis) and hypothyroidism predominantly affected women, while coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes were more prevalent in men. The top two prescribed medications were atorvastatin (33%) and aspirin 81 mg (33%). Males were more likely to be prescribed lipid-lowering medications, while females were more likely to receive osteoporosis therapy. Patients received less lipid-lowering therapy with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are highly prevalent in patients in the 85+ age group. The most common clinical conditions are related to cardiovascular and bone health, and the most commonly prescribed medications are directed towards risk factors for these illnesses. In the absence of data to guide clinical decision-making, this study provides a first look at the common health concerns and medication profiles in this population and reveals trends that give rise to reflections on how clinical care for these patients can be improved.