Pulmonary Artery Catheter Monitoring in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Time for a Reappraisal?

Cardiogenic shock represents one of the most dramatic scenarios to deal with in intensive cardiology care and is burdened by substantial short-term mortality. An integrated approach, including timely diagnosis and phenotyping, along with a well-established shock team and management protocol, may improve survival. The use of the Swan-Ganz catheter could play a pivotal role in various phases of cardiogenic shock management, encompassing diagnosis and haemodynamic characterisation to treatment selection, titration and weaning. Moreover, it is essential in the evaluation of patients who might be candidates for long-term heart-replacement strategies. This review provides a historical background on the use of the Swan-Ganz catheter in the intensive care unit and an analysis of the available evidence in terms of potential prognostic implications in this setting.

Prognostic implications of pulmonary artery catheter monitoring in patients with cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) monitoring on survival of cardiogenic shock(CS), in the light of the controversies in available evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library and Web of Science were systematically screened to identify most relevant studies on patients with CS comparing PAC use to non-use during hospital stay. Short-term mortality was the primary endpoint and the use of Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS) devices was the secondary one. RESULTS: Six observational studies including 1,166,762 patients were selected. The most frequent etiology of CS was post-myocardial infarction (75% [95% CI 55-89%] in PAC-group and 81%[95% CI 47-95%] in non-PAC group). Overall, PAC was used in 33%(95% CI 24-44%) of cases. Pooling data adjusted for confounders, a significant association between the PAC-group and a reduction in short-term mortality emerged when compared to the non-PAC group (36%[95% CI 27-45%] vs 47%[95% CI 35-59%];AdjustedOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.87, p < 0.01). MCS use was significantly higher in PAC vs non-PAC group (59% [95% CI 54-65%]) vs 48% [95% CI 43-53%]);OR 1.60 [95% CI 1.27-2.02, p < 0.01]). CONCLUSIONS: PAC was associated with lower incidence of short-term mortality in CS pooling adjusted observational studies. Prospective studies are needed to confirm our hypothesis and better clarify the mechanisms of this potential prognostic benefit.