ReviewDer Anaesthesist2006
[Pulmonary artery catheter in anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine].
Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- The Use of Pulmonary Artery Catheter in Sepsis Patients: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2016Review
- Arterial pressure waveform derived cardiac output FloTrac/Vigileo system (third generation software): comparison of two monitoring sites with the thermodilution cardiac output.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2012Article
- [Echocardiography during acute hemodynamic instability].Der Anaesthesist · 2006Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The indication for the use of the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) in high-risk patients is still a matter of discussion. Observational studies suggested that the use of the PAC did not result in decreased mortality but may even lead to increased mortality and morbidity. Therefore, a number of randomized controlled trials have been performed throughout recent years in patients suffering from sepsis/ARDS, congestive heart failure, multi-organ failure and those undergoing high-risk non-cardiac surgery. The majority of recent randomized studies failed to demonstrate any benefit of the PAC with respect to mortality and morbidity. However, the use of the PAC was also regularly not associated with an increase in morbidity and/or mortality. This review gives an overview of measurement parameters obtained by the current generation of PACs, alternatives to the PAC and recent studies on the use of the PAC in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.