ArticleCirculation reports2025
Use of a Pulmonary Artery Catheter in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Circulation reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic Utility of Pulmonary Arterial Elastance in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Classified as Killip Classes 3-4.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Defining a Cardiogenic Shock Center and Its Relationship to Outcomes Among Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Scoping Review.Circulation reports · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of the Shock Team on Short-Term Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Invasive hemodynamic monitoring-guided resuscitation improves survival in shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of intensive care · 2026Review
- A Proposed Algorithm for the Management of Patients with Cardiogenic Shock Based on Contemporary Knowledge and Gaps in Evidence.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) provides detailed hemodynamic data, and managing a patient with cardiogenic shock (CS) using a PAC potentially improves patient outcomes. Therefore, in this systematic review and meta-analysis we aimed to evaluate whether a PAC is associated with better outcomes in patients with CS. Methods and Results: Studies comparing PAC and non-PAC management in patients with CS were identified from the PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases. There were no randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the 19 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 12 without a critical risk of bias were analyzed. PAC use was associated with lower in-hospital mortality when evaluated as a dichotomous outcome. Similar trends were observed in the time-to-event analyses. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across the studies. Subgroup analysis revealed better outcomes with PAC in patients with CS related to heart failure, but not in those with acute coronary syndrome. Sensitivity analyses, which included studies with a critical risk of bias, showed consistent trends favoring PAC use for crude in-hospital mortality. The overall certainty of the evidence was very low because of inconsistencies and biases. Conclusions: The PAC-guided CS management was associated with better in-hospital mortality, particularly in patients with heart failure-related CS. However, RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of PAC use as a primary purpose were not included, necessitating further RCTs to confirm these findings.
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.