1990
DOI: 10.1378/chest.98.6.1331
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Use of Pulmonary Artery Catheters in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
46
0
2

Year Published

1996
1996
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 191 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
3
46
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…These observations were partially explained by case-mix differences between the groups of the study. [59][60][61] Similar observational findings have subsequently been reported in other groups of patients. 47,61,62 A recent prospective randomized study enrolling a mixed group of critically ill patients failed to demonstrate a difference in outcome, although randomization to the PAC led to increased fluid resuscitation within the first 24 h. The PAC did not cause harm to patients, rather it was the use of the information derived from the catheter (sometimes in an inappropriate fashion) that was detrimental.…”
Section: Central Venous Pressure Lines Central Venous Lines Provide supporting
confidence: 86%
“…These observations were partially explained by case-mix differences between the groups of the study. [59][60][61] Similar observational findings have subsequently been reported in other groups of patients. 47,61,62 A recent prospective randomized study enrolling a mixed group of critically ill patients failed to demonstrate a difference in outcome, although randomization to the PAC led to increased fluid resuscitation within the first 24 h. The PAC did not cause harm to patients, rather it was the use of the information derived from the catheter (sometimes in an inappropriate fashion) that was detrimental.…”
Section: Central Venous Pressure Lines Central Venous Lines Provide supporting
confidence: 86%
“…In the 1990's a number of non-randomized cohort and case-control studies associating the use of PAC with increased mortality were published with increasing concern raised about its widespread use. 1, 3,4 Sandham and colleagues on behalf of the Canadian Critical Care Clinical Trials Group recently reported on a randomized controlled trial of PAC use in 1994 high-risk geriatric surgical patients. 5 They found no difference in the mortality rate (7.8% PAC vs 7.7% control) or length of hospitalization among patients treated with the aid of a PAC as compared to those managed without this device.…”
Section: Conclusion : Le Do Est Un Appareil De Mesure Périopératoire mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is similar to what is reported in the literature (15) and possibly reflects the success of revascularization in reducing infarct size and the development of cardiogenic shock, as well as changing practice patterns. This decline in Swan-Ganz monitoring has been shown by others to reduce the rate of iatrogenic complications (16,17). Significance of the study Our findings have historical interest and put numbers on the increasing performance of CCUs in managing more patients while reducing in-hospital mortality.…”
Section: Discussion Interpretationmentioning
confidence: 78%