Key result
Clinical evaluation by intensive care residents correctly predicted hemodynamic and metabolic parameters in only a median of 50% of cases compared to pulmonary artery catheter measurements (p < 0.01).
Why the study?
Does pulmonary artery catheterization provide additional information beyond clinical evaluation by intensive care residents in critically ill patients?
Observational (n=149)
Does pulmonary artery catheterization provide additional information beyond clinical evaluation by intensive care residents in critically ill patients?
Pulmonary artery catheterization provides valuable additional hemodynamic information beyond clinical assessment in about 50% of critically ill patients, supporting its use in cases with unclear hemodynamic profiles.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Clinical assessment by residents matched PAC measurements in half of cases; leaves open whether routine catheterization improves outcomes in critically ill patients.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the amount of additional information provided by measurements derived from pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use beyond that derived from clinical evaluation by intensive care residents. METHODS: One hundred forty-nine consecutive patients undergoing right-heart catheterization were prospectively included in the study. Before inserting a PAC, physicians had to predict pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP), pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI), cardiac index (CI), mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2), oxygen delivery (DO2), oxygen consumption (VO2), and pulmonary shunt fraction (Qs/Qt) by selecting a given option on a questionnaire. Ranges of options were chosen to create clear clinical differences among them. RESULTS: The correct value was predicted in a median of 50% of cases (range, 45-63%). PAP was predicted correctly in 55%, PCWP in 46%, SVRI in 63%, CI in 62%, SvO2 in 45%, DO2 in 45%, VO2 in 51%, and Qs/Qt in 51%. A significant difference was found between estimated and measured values for all parameters (p < 0.01). No significant differences were detected between more and less experienced physicians. There was no significant difference between estimated and measured values with respect to the different courses of intensive care unit admissions or the different indications for PAC insertion. CONCLUSION: In a selected group of critically ill patients, the PAC adds valuable and clinically relevant information to clinical assessment in about 50% of cases. Its use should not be withheld in patients with unclear hemodynamic and metabolic profiles.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Staudinger et al. (1998) conducted an observational in Critically ill patients requiring right-heart catheterization (n=149). Pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) measurements vs. Clinical evaluation by intensive care residents was evaluated on Difference between clinically estimated and PAC-measured hemodynamic and metabolic parameters (p=< 0.01). Clinical evaluation by intensive care residents correctly predicted hemodynamic and metabolic parameters in only a median of 50% of cases compared to pulmonary artery catheter measurements (p < 0.01).
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: