Agreement between continuous and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution for cardiac output measurement in perioperative and intensive care medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Cardiac index
Cardiovascular dynamics
Hemodynamic monitoring
Indicator dilution method
Pulmonary artery catheterization
Right heart catheterization
Swan-Ganz catheter
Journal
Critical care (London, England)
ISSN: 1466-609X
Titre abrégé: Crit Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9801902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 03 2021
29 03 2021
Historique:
received:
09
12
2020
accepted:
01
03
2021
entrez:
30
3
2021
pubmed:
31
3
2021
medline:
16
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pulmonary artery thermodilution is the clinical reference method for cardiac output monitoring. Because both continuous and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution are used in clinical practice it is important to know whether cardiac output measurements by the two methods are clinically interchangeable. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies comparing cardiac output measurements assessed using continuous and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution in adult surgical and critically ill patients. 54 studies with 1522 patients were included in the analysis. The heterogeneity across the studies was high. The overall random effects model-derived pooled estimate of the mean of the differences was 0.08 (95%-confidence interval 0.01 to 0.16) L/min with pooled 95%-limits of agreement of - 1.68 to 1.85 L/min and a pooled percentage error of 29.7 (95%-confidence interval 20.5 to 38.9)%. The heterogeneity across clinical studies comparing continuous and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution in adult surgical and critically ill patients is high. The overall trueness/accuracy of continuous pulmonary artery thermodilution in comparison with intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution is good (indicated by a pooled mean of the differences < 0.1 L/min). Pooled 95%-limits of agreement of - 1.68 to 1.85 L/min and a pooled percentage error of 29.7% suggest that continuous pulmonary artery thermodilution barely passes interchangeability criteria with intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020159730.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Pulmonary artery thermodilution is the clinical reference method for cardiac output monitoring. Because both continuous and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution are used in clinical practice it is important to know whether cardiac output measurements by the two methods are clinically interchangeable.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies comparing cardiac output measurements assessed using continuous and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution in adult surgical and critically ill patients. 54 studies with 1522 patients were included in the analysis.
RESULTS
The heterogeneity across the studies was high. The overall random effects model-derived pooled estimate of the mean of the differences was 0.08 (95%-confidence interval 0.01 to 0.16) L/min with pooled 95%-limits of agreement of - 1.68 to 1.85 L/min and a pooled percentage error of 29.7 (95%-confidence interval 20.5 to 38.9)%.
CONCLUSION
The heterogeneity across clinical studies comparing continuous and intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution in adult surgical and critically ill patients is high. The overall trueness/accuracy of continuous pulmonary artery thermodilution in comparison with intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution is good (indicated by a pooled mean of the differences < 0.1 L/min). Pooled 95%-limits of agreement of - 1.68 to 1.85 L/min and a pooled percentage error of 29.7% suggest that continuous pulmonary artery thermodilution barely passes interchangeability criteria with intermittent pulmonary artery thermodilution. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020159730.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33781307
doi: 10.1186/s13054-021-03523-7
pii: 10.1186/s13054-021-03523-7
pmc: PMC8006374
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
125Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Vincent JL, Pelosi P, Pearse R, Payen D, Perel A, Hoeft A, et al. Perioperative cardiovascular monitoring of high-risk patients: a consensus of 12. Crit Care. 2015;19(1):224.
pubmed: 25953531
pmcid: 4424585
Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, Beale R, Bakker J, Hofer C, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(12):1795–815.
pubmed: 25392034
pmcid: 4239778
Saugel B, Vincent J-L. Cardiac output monitoring: how to choose the optimal method for the individual patient. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018;24(3):165–72.
pubmed: 29621027
De Backer D, Bakker J, Cecconi M, Hajjar L, Liu DW, Lobo S, et al. Alternatives to the Swan-Ganz catheter. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(6):730–41.
pubmed: 29725695
Teboul JL, Saugel B, Cecconi M, De Backer D, Hofer CK, Monnet X, et al. Less invasive hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(9):1350–9.
pubmed: 27155605
Kouz K, Scheeren TWL, de Backer D, Saugel B. Pulse wave analysis to estimate cardiac output. Anesthesiology. 2021;134(1):119–26.
pubmed: 32914174
Stewart GN. Researches on the circulation time and on the Influences which affect it. J Physiol. 1897;22(3):159–83.
pubmed: 16992399
pmcid: 1512629
Reuter DA, Huang C, Edrich T, Shernan SK, Eltzschig HK. Cardiac output monitoring using indicator-dilution techniques: basics, limits, and perspectives. Anesth Analg. 2010;110(3):799–811.
pubmed: 20185659
pmcid: 20185659
Hamilton WF, Moore JW, Kinsman JM, Spurling RG. Simultaneous determination of the pulmonary and systemic circulation times in man and of a figure related to the cardiac output. Am J Physiol. 1928;84(2):338–44.
Rajaram SS, Desai NK, Kalra A, Gajera M, Cavanaugh SK, Brampton W, et al. Pulmonary artery catheters for adult patients in intensive care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2:CD003408.
Yelderman M. Continuous measurement of cardiac output with the use of stochastic system identification techniques. J Clin Monit. 1990;6(4):322–32.
pubmed: 2230861
pmcid: 2230861
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):W65-94.
pubmed: 19622512
Critchley LA, Critchley JA. A meta-analysis of studies using bias and precision statistics to compare cardiac output measurement techniques. J Clin Monit Comput. 1999;15:85–91.
pubmed: 12578081
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–36.
pubmed: 22007046
Joosten A, Desebbe O, Suehiro K, Murphy LS, Essiet M, Alexander B, et al. Accuracy and precision of non-invasive cardiac output monitoring devices in perioperative medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2017;118(3):298–310.
pubmed: 28203792
Saugel B, Hoppe P, Nicklas JY, Kouz K, Korner A, Hempel JC, et al. Continuous noninvasive pulse wave analysis using finger cuff technologies for arterial blood pressure and cardiac output monitoring in perioperative and intensive care medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2020;125(1):25–37.
pubmed: 32475686
DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–88.
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor Package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):48.
Akiyoshi K, Kandabashi T, Kaji J, Yamaura K, Yoshimura H, Irita K, et al. Accuracy of arterial pressure waveform analysis for cardiac output measurement in comparison with thermodilution methods in patients undergoing living donor liver transplantation. J Anesth. 2011;25(2):178–83.
pubmed: 21246221
Albert NM, Spear BT, Hammel J. Agreement and clinical utility of 2 techniques for measuring cardiac output in patients with low cardiac output. Am J Crit Care. 1999;8(1):464–74.
pubmed: 9987544
Bao FP, Wu J. Continuous versus bolus cardiac output monitoring during orthotopic liver transplantation. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2008;7(2):138–44.
pubmed: 18397847
Bendjelid K, Schutz N, Suter PM, Romand JA. Continuous cardiac output monitoring after cardiopulmonary bypass: a comparison with bolus thermodilution measurement. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32(6):919–22.
pubmed: 16601960
Boldt J, Menges T, Wollbruck M, Hammermann H, Hempelmann G. Is continuous cardiac output measurement using thermodilution reliable in the critically ill patient? Crit Care Med. 1994;22(12):1913–8.
pubmed: 7988126
Bottiger BW, Rauch H, Bohrer H, Motsch J, Soder M, Fleischer F, et al. Continuous versus intermittent cardiac output measurement in cardiac surgical patients undergoing hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 1995;9(4):405–11.
pubmed: 7579110
Bottiger BW, Sinner B, Motsch J, Bach A, Bauer H, Martin E. Continuous versus intermittent thermodilution cardiac output measurement during orthotopic liver transplantation. Anaesthesia. 1997;52(3):207–14.
pubmed: 9124659
Bottiger BW, Soder M, Rauch H, Bohrer H, Motsch J, Bauer H, et al. Semi-continuous versus injectate cardiac output measurement in intensive care patients after cardiac surgery. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22(4):312–8.
pubmed: 8708168
Boyle M, Jacobs S, Torda TA, Shehabi Y. Assessment of the agreement between cardiac output measured by bolus thermodilution and continuous methods, with particular reference to the effect of heart rhythm. Aust Crit Care. 1997;10(1):5–8, 10–1.
Burchell SA, Yu M, Takiguchi SA, Ohta RM, Myers SA. Evaluation of a continuous cardiac output and mixed venous oxygen saturation catheter in critically ill surgical patients. Crit Care Med. 1997;25(3):388–91.
pubmed: 9118651
Button D, Weibel L, Reuthebuch O, Genoni M, Zollinger A, Hofer CK. Clinical evaluation of the FloTrac/Vigileo system and two established continuous cardiac output monitoring devices in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2007;99(3):329–36.
pubmed: 17631509
Cathelyn J, Glenn LL. Effect of ambient temperature and cardiac stability on two methods of cardiac output measurement. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 1999;13(3):93–101.
pubmed: 10098009
Cecchini S, Schena E, Saccomandi P, Polisca F, Di Cecca I, Notaro M, et al. Cardiac output estimation in mechanically ventilated patients: a comparison between prolonged expiration method and thermodilution. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012;2012:2708–11.
pubmed: 23366484
Cecconi M, Dawson D, Casaretti R, Grounds RM, Rhodes A. A prospective study of the accuracy and precision of continuous cardiac output monitoring devices as compared to intermittent thermodilution. Minerva Anestesiol. 2010;76(12):1010–7.
pubmed: 20634793
Cho YJ, Koo CH, Kim TK, Hong DM, Jeon Y. Comparison of cardiac output measures by transpulmonary thermodilution, pulse contour analysis, and pulmonary artery thermodilution during off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: a subgroup analysis of the cardiovascular anaesthesia registry at a single tertiary centre. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30(6):771–82.
pubmed: 26429135
Costa MG, Chiarandini P, Scudeller L, Vetrugno L, Pompei L, Serena G, et al. Uncalibrated continuous cardiac output measurement in liver transplant patients: LiDCOrapid system versus pulmonary artery catheter. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2014;28(3):540–6.
pubmed: 24917057
Costa MG, Della Rocca G, Chiarandini P, Mattelig S, Pompei L, Barriga MS, et al. Continuous and intermittent cardiac output measurement in hyperdynamic conditions: pulmonary artery catheter vs lithium dilution technique. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34(2):257–63.
pubmed: 17922106
Della Rocca G, Costa MG, Coccia C, Pompei L, Di Marco P, Vilardi V, et al. Cardiac output monitoring: aortic transpulmonary thermodilution and pulse contour analysis agree with standard thermodilution methods in patients undergoing lung transplantation. Can J Anaesth. 2003;50(7):707–11.
pubmed: 12944446
Della Rocca G, Costa MG, Pompei L, Coccia C, Pietropaoli P. Continuous and intermittent cardiac output measurement: pulmonary artery catheter versus aortic transpulmonary technique. Br J Anaesth. 2002;88(3):350–6.
pubmed: 11990265
Ditmyer CE, Shively M, Burns DB, Reichman RT. Comparison of continuous with intermittent bolus thermodilution cardiac output measurements. Am J Crit Care. 1995;4(6):460–5.
pubmed: 8556087
Ganter MT, Alhashemi JA, Al-Shabasy AM, Schmid UM, Schott P, Shalabi SA, et al. Continuous cardiac output measurement by un-calibrated pulse wave analysis and pulmonary artery catheter in patients with septic shock. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30(1):13–22.
pubmed: 25721853
Greim CA, Roewer N, Thiel H, Laux G, SchulteamEsch J. Continuous cardiac output monitoring during adult liver transplantation: thermal filament technique versus bolus thermodilution. Anesth Analg. 1997;85(3):483–8.
pubmed: 9296398
Haller M, Zollner C, Briegel J, Forst H. Evaluation of a new continuous thermodilution cardiac output monitor in critically ill patients: a prospective criterion standard study. Crit Care Med. 1995;23(5):860–6.
pubmed: 7736744
Hamm JB, Nguyen BV, Kiss G, Wargnier JP, Jauffroy A, Helaine L, et al. Assessment of a cardiac output device using arterial pulse waveform analysis, Vigileo, in cardiac surgery compared to pulmonary arterial thermodilution. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2010;38(2):295–301.
pubmed: 20369763
Hogue CW Jr, Rosenbloom M, McCawley C, Lappas DG. Comparison of cardiac output measurement by continuous thermodilution with electromagnetometry in adult cardiac surgical patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 1994;8(6):631–5.
pubmed: 7880990
Ishihara H, Okawa H, Tanabe K, Tsubo T, Sugo Y, Akiyama T, et al. A new non-invasive continuous cardiac output trend solely utilizing routine cardiovascular monitors. J Clin Monit Comput. 2004;18(5–6):313–20.
pubmed: 15957621
Jacquet L, Hanique G, Glorieux D, Matte P, Goenen M. Analysis of the accuracy of continuous thermodilution cardiac output measurement. Comparison with intermittent thermodilution and Fick cardiac output measurement. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22(10):1125–9.
pubmed: 8923082
Jakobsen CJ, Melsen NC, Andresen EB. Continuous cardiac output measurements in the perioperative period. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1995;39(4):485–8.
pubmed: 7676783
Kotake Y, Moriyama K, Innami Y, Shimizu H, Ueda T, Morisaki H, et al. Performance of noninvasive partial CO
pubmed: 12883400
Kotake Y, Yamada T, Nagata H, Suzuki T, Serita R, Katori N, et al. Improved accuracy of cardiac output estimation by the partial CO
pubmed: 19301132
Lazor MA, Pierce ET, Stanley GD, Cass JL, Halpern EF, Bode RH Jr. Evaluation of the accuracy and response time of STAT-mode continuous cardiac output. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 1997;11(4):432–6.
Le Tulzo Y, Belghith M, Seguin P, Dall’Ava J, Monchi M, Thomas R, et al. Reproducibility of thermodilution cardiac output determination in critically ill patients: comparison between bolus and continuous method. J Clin Monit. 1996;12(5):379–85.
pubmed: 8934344
Leather HA, Vuylsteke A, Bert C, M’Fam W, Segers P, Sergeant P, et al. Evaluation of a new continuous cardiac output monitor in off-pump coronary artery surgery. Anaesthesia. 2004;59(4):385–9.
pubmed: 15023110
Lefrant JY, Bruelle P, Ripart J, Ibanez F, Aya G, Peray P, et al. Cardiac output measurement in critically ill patients: comparison of continuous and conventional thermodilution techniques. Can J Anaesth. 1995;42(11):972–6.
pubmed: 8590506
Manecke GR Jr, Auger WR. Cardiac output determination from the arterial pressure wave: clinical testing of a novel algorithm that does not require calibration. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2007;21(1):3–7.
pubmed: 17289472
McGee WT, Horswell JL, Calderon J, Janvier G, Van Severen T, Van den Berghe G, et al. Validation of a continuous, arterial pressure-based cardiac output measurement: a multicenter, prospective clinical trial. Crit Care. 2007;11(5):R105.
pubmed: 17880692
pmcid: 2556749
Mielck F, Buhre W, Hanekop G, Tirilomis T, Hilgers R, Sonntag H. Comparison of continuous cardiac output measurements in patients after cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2003;17(2):211–6.
pubmed: 12698404
Mihm FG, Gettinger A, Hanson CW 3rd, Gilbert HC, Stover EP, Vender JS, et al. A multicenter evaluation of a new continuous cardiac output pulmonary artery catheter system. Crit Care Med. 1998;26(8):1346–50.
pubmed: 9710092
Monchi M, Thebert D, Cariou A, Bellenfant F, Joly LM, Brunet F, et al. Clinical evaluation of the Abbott Qvue-OptiQ continuous cardiac output system in critically ill medical patients. J Crit Care. 1998;13(2):91–5.
pubmed: 9627276
Nelson LD, Safcsak K, Cheatham ML, Block EF. Mathematical coupling does not explain the relationship between right ventricular end-diastolic volume and cardiac output. Crit Care Med. 2001;29(5):940–3.
pubmed: 11378601
Neto EP, Piriou V, Durand PG, Du Gres B, Lehot JJ. Comparison of two semicontinuous cardiac output pulmonary artery catheters after valvular surgery. Crit Care Med. 1999;27(12):2694–7.
pubmed: 10628612
Padua G, Canestrelli G, Pala G, Sechi D, Spanu MC. Original insight into continuous cardiac output monitoring: "TruCCOMS". Correlation with other methods. Miner Anestesiol. 2003;69(7–8):617–22, 22–4.
Peyton P. Hybrid measurement to achieve satisfactory precision in perioperative cardiac output monitoring. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2014;42(3):340–9.
pubmed: 24794474
Rauch H, Muller M, Fleischer F, Bauer H, Martin E, Bottiger BW. Pulse contour analysis versus thermodilution in cardiac surgery patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2002;46(4):424–9.
pubmed: 11952444
Rodig G, Keyl C, Liebold A, Hobbhahn J. Intra-operative evaluation of a continuous versus intermittent bolus thermodilution technique of cardiac output measurement in cardiac surgical patients. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1998;15(2):196–201.
pubmed: 9587726
Rodig G, Prasser C, Keyl C, Liebold A, Hobbhahn J. Continuous cardiac output measurement: pulse contour analysis vs thermodilution technique in cardiac surgical patients. Br J Anaesth. 1999;82(4):525–30.
pubmed: 10472216
Sakka SG, Reinhart K, Wegscheider K, Meier-Hellmann A. Is the placement of a pulmonary artery catheter still justified solely for the measurement of cardiac output? J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2000;14(2):119–24.
pubmed: 10794326
Schmid ER, Schmidlin D, Tornic M, Seifert B. Continuous thermodilution cardiac output: clinical validation against a reference technique of known accuracy. Intensive Care Med. 1999;25(2):166–72.
pubmed: 10193543
Seguin P, Colcanap O, Le Rouzo A, Tanguy M, Guillou YM, Malledant Y. Evaluation of a new semi-continuous cardiac output system in the intensive care unit. Can J Anaesth. 1998;45(6):578–83.
pubmed: 9669016
Singh A, Juneja R, Mehta Y, Trehan N. Comparison of continuous, stat, and intermittent cardiac output measurements in patients undergoing minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2002;16(2):186–90.
pubmed: 11957168
Thierry S, Thebert D, Brocas E, Razzaghi F, Van De Louw A, Loisance D, et al. Evaluation of a new invasive continuous cardiac output monitoring system: the truCCOMS system. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29(11):2096–9.
pubmed: 13680117
Yelderman ML, Ramsay MA, Quinn MD, Paulsen AW, McKown RC, Gillman PH. Continuous thermodilution cardiac output measurement in intensive care unit patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 1992;6(3):270–4.
pubmed: 1610988
Zollner C, Goetz AE, Weis M, Morstedt K, Pichler B, Lamm P, et al. Continuous cardiac output measurements do not agree with conventional bolus thermodilution cardiac output determination. Can J Anaesth. 2001;48(11):1143–7.
pubmed: 11744592
Zollner C, Polasek J, Kilger E, Pichler B, Jaenicke U, Briegel J, et al. Evaluation of a new continuous thermodilution cardiac output monitor in cardiac surgical patients: a prospective criterion standard study. Crit Care Med. 1999;27(2):293–8.
pubmed: 10075052
Squara P, Scheeren TWL, Aya HD, Bakker J, Cecconi M, Einav S, et al. Metrology part 1: definition of quality criteria. J Clin Monit Comput. 2020;35(1):17–25.
pubmed: 32185615
pmcid: 7889530
Squara P, Scheeren TWL, Aya HD, Bakker J, Cecconi M, Einav S, et al. Metrology part 2: procedures for the validation of major measurement quality criteria and measuring instrument properties. J Clin Monit Comput. 2020;35(1):27–37.
pubmed: 32185616
pmcid: 7889542
Hapfelmeier A, Cecconi M, Saugel B. Cardiac output method comparison studies: the relation of the precision of agreement and the precision of method. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30(2):149–55.
pubmed: 26026648
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–10.
pubmed: 2868172
Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(2):135–60.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17(4):571–82.
pubmed: 17613642
Michard F. Thinking outside the (cardiac output) box. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(4):1361–2.
pubmed: 22425843
Medin DL, Brown DT, Wesley R, Cunnion RE, Ognibene FP. Validation of continuous thermodilution cardiac output in critically ill patients with analysis of systematic errors. J Crit Care. 1998;13(4):184–9.
pubmed: 9869545
Siegel LC, Hennessy MM, Pearl RG. Delayed time response of the continuous cardiac output pulmonary artery catheter. Anesth Analg. 1996;83(6):1173–7.
pubmed: 8942581
Aranda M, Mihm FG, Garrett S, Mihm MN, Pearl RG. Continuous cardiac output catheters: delay in in vitro response time after controlled flow changes. Anesthesiology. 1998;89(6):1592–5.
pubmed: 9856744
De Backer D, Vincent JL. The pulmonary artery catheter: is it still alive? Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018;24(3):204–8.
pubmed: 29608456
Vincent JL. The pulmonary artery catheter. J Clin Monit Comput. 2012;26(5):341–5.
pubmed: 22886686
De Backer D, Hajjar LA, Pinsky MR. Is there still a place for the SwanGanz catheter? We are not sure. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(6):960–2.
pubmed: 29796917
Demiselle J, Mercat A, Asfar P. Is there still a place for the Swan-Ganz catheter? Yes. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(6):954–6.
pubmed: 29796915
Teboul JL, Cecconi M, Scheeren TWL. Is there still a place for the Swan-Ganz catheter? No. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(6):957–9.
pubmed: 29796916
Richard C, Warszawski J, Anguel N, Deye N, Combes A, Barnoud D, et al. Early use of the pulmonary artery catheter and outcomes in patients with shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290(20):2713–20.
pubmed: 14645314
Harvey S, Harrison DA, Singer M, Ashcroft J, Jones CM, Elbourne D, et al. Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9484):472–7.
pubmed: 16084255
Chiang Y, Hosseinian L, Rhee A, Itagaki S, Cavallaro P, Chikwe J. Questionable benefit of the pulmonary artery catheter after cardiac surgery in high-risk patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2015;29(1):76–81.
pubmed: 25620141
Seifi A, Elliott RJ, Elsehety MA. Usage of Swan-Ganz catheterization during the past 2 decades in United States. J Crit Care. 2016;35:213–4.
pubmed: 27325486
Wiener RS, Welch HG. Trends in the use of the pulmonary artery catheter in the United States, 1993–2004. JAMA. 2007;298(4):423–9.
pubmed: 17652296
Peyton PJ, Chong SW. Minimally invasive measurement of cardiac output during surgery and critical care: a meta-analysis of accuracy and precision. Anesthesiology. 2010;113(5):1220–35.
pubmed: 20881596
Chong SW, Peyton PJ. A meta-analysis of the accuracy and precision of the ultrasonic cardiac output monitor (USCOM). Anaesthesia. 2012;67(11):1266–71.
pubmed: 22928650