Key result
Review evaluates core clinical evidence regarding safety and efficacy of pulmonary artery catheters.
Why the study?
Controversy persists regarding the efficacy and safety of pulmonary artery catheter use as a bedside clinical tool despite extensive research efforts.
PAC utility remains uncertain in critical care; leaves open optimal selection criteria for future trials.
Controversy concerning the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) and its use as a bedside clinical tool continues to be a significant bone of contention. In the pursuit of evidence-based medicine, a substantial effort has been made over the last 25 years to demonstrate the benefit or lack thereof of PAC-led therapy, and this endeavor still persists with large, randomized, clinical trials currently in progress both in the United States and in the United Kingdom. This article reviews the core evidence for and against PAC efficacy and safety and considers the most appropriate method for validation of such a device.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Williams et al. (2002) reported a review. Pulmonary artery catheter was evaluated. This article reviews the core evidence for and against the efficacy and safety of the pulmonary artery catheter as a bedside clinical tool.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: