Pulmonary artery catheters for adult patients in intensive care.

BACKGROUND: Since pulmonary artery balloon flotation catheterization was first introduced in 1970, by HJ Swan and W Ganz, it has been widely disseminated as a diagnostic tool without rigorous evaluation of its clinical utility and effectiveness in critically ill patients. A pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) is inserted through a central venous access into the right side of the heart and floated into the pulmonary artery. PAC is used to measure stroke volume, cardiac output, mixed venous oxygen saturation and intracardiac pressures with a variety of additional calculated variables to guide diagnosis and treatment. Complications of the procedure are mainly related to line insertion. Relatively uncommon complications include cardiac arrhythmias, pulmonary haemorrhage and infarct, and associated mortality from balloon tip rupture. OBJECTIVES: To provide an up-to-date assessment of the effectiveness of a PAC on mortality, length of stay (LOS) in intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital and cost of care in adult intensive care patients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 12); MEDLINE (1954 to January 2012); EMBASE (1980 to January 2012); CINAHL (1982 to January 2012), and reference lists of articles. We contacted researchers in the field. We did a grey literature search for articles published until January 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials conducted in adults ICUs, comparing management with and without a PAC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened the titles and abstracts and then the full text reports identified from our electronic search. Two authors (SR and MG) independently reviewed the titles, abstracts and then the full text reports for inclusion. We determined the final list of included studies by discussion among the group members (SR, ND, MG, AK and SC) with consensus agreement. We included all the studies that were in the original review. We assessed seven domains of potential risk of bias for the included studies. We examined the clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity and used random-effects model for meta-analysis. We calculated risk ratio for mortality across studies and mean days for LOS. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies (5686 patients). We judged blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment to be at high risk in about 50% of the included studies and at low risk in 25% to 30% of the studies. Regardless of the high risk of performance bias these studies were included based on the low weight the studies had in the meta-analysis. We rated 75% of the studies as low risk for selection, attrition and reporting bias. All 13 studies reported some type of hospital mortality (28-day, 30-day, 60-day or ICU mortality). We considered studies of high-risk surgery patients (eight studies) and general intensive care patients (five studies) separately as subgroups for meta-analysis. The pooled risk ratio (RR) for mortality for the studies of general intensive care patients was 1.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.09) and for the studies of high-risk surgery patients the RR was 0.98 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.29). Of the eight studies of high-risk surgery patients, five evaluated the effectiveness of pre-operative optimization but there was no difference in mortality when these studies were examined separately. PAC did not affect general ICU LOS (reported by four studies) or hospital LOS (reported by nine studies). Four studies, conducted in the United States (US), reported costs based on hospital charges billed, which on average were higher in the PAC groups. Two of these studies qualified for analysis and did not show a statistically significant hospital cost difference (mean difference USD 900, 95% CI -2620 to 4420, P = 0.62). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PAC is a diagnostic and haemodynamic monitoring tool but not a therapeutic intervention. Our review concluded that use of a PAC did not alter the mortality, general ICU or hospital LOS, or cost for adult patients in intensive care. The quality of evidence was high for mortality and LOS but low for cost analysis. Efficacy studies are needed to determine if there are optimal PAC-guided management protocols, which when applied to specific patient groups in ICUs could result in benefits such as shock reversal, improved organ function and less vasopressor use. Newer, less-invasive haemodynamic monitoring tools need to be validated against PAC prior to clinical use in critically ill patients.

Decompression sickness after a highly conservative dive in a diver with known persistent foramen ovale: Case report.

A diver returned to diving, 15 months after an episode of neuro-spinal decompression sickness (DCS) with relapse, after which she had been found to have a moderate to large provoked shunt across a persistent (patent) foramen ovale (PFO), which was not closed. She performed a single highly conservative dive in line with the recommendations contained in the 2015 position statement on PFO and diving published jointly by the South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society and the United Kingdom Sports Diving Medical Committee. An accidental Valsalva manoeuvre shortly after surfacing may have provoked initial symptoms which later progressed to DCS. Her symptoms and signs were milder but closely mirrored her previous episode of DCS and she required multiple hyperbaric oxygen treatments over several days, with residua on discharge. Although guidance in the joint statement was mostly followed, the outcome from this case indicates that there may be a subgroup of divers with an unclosed PFO, who have had a previous episode of serious DCS, who may not be safe to dive, even within conservative limits.

Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 30 years the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) has become a widely used haemodynamic monitoring device in the management of critically ill patients, though doubts exist about its safety. Our aim was, therefore, to ascertain whether hospital mortality is reduced in critically ill patients when they are managed with a PAC. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled trial to which we enrolled 1041 patients from 65 UK intensive care units. We assigned individuals to management with (n=519) or without (n=522) a PAC. The timing of insertion and subsequent clinical management were at the discretion of the treating clinician. Intensive care units decided a priori to have the option of using an alternative cardiac output-monitoring device in control patients. FINDINGS: 1014 patients were eligible for analysis. We noted no difference in hospital mortality between patients managed with or without a PAC (68% [346 of 506] vs 66% [333 of 507], p=0.39; adjusted hazard ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.94-1.27). We noted complications associated with insertion of a PAC in 46 of 486 individuals in whom the device was placed, none of which was fatal. INTERPRETATION: Our findings indicate no clear evidence of benefit or harm by managing critically ill patients with a PAC. Efficacy studies are needed to ascertain whether management protocols involving PAC use can result in improved outcomes in specific groups if these devices are not to become a redundant technology.