Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of clinical studies of PAC use

From: Evidence-based review of the use of the pulmonary artery catheter: impact data and complications

Ref.

Year

Number of cases

Study design

Clinical settings

Significant findings

[41]

1975

413

Case series

Autopsy reports

TEV with PAC was 4.25 times more frequent than with central lines; impact on mortality not studied

[38]

1979

116

Prospective case series

Critically ill patients with shock, pulmonary edema, and hemodynamic instability postoperatively

77% Arrhythmia without increased mortality or morbidity, 1.7% staphylococcal bacteremia, 1.7% subclavian DVT

[49]

1981

60

Incidence study

Critically ill patients

48% PVC and 33% VT with one death

[40]

1981

320 PAC in 219 patients

Prospective case series

Critically ill patients

3% Major complications; only one death

[36]

1983

528 PAC placements in 500 patients

Case series

All cases in one medical center

24% Complications, with 4.4% serious ones; no deaths related to complications

[42]

1983

36

Prospective case series

Autopsy

61% mural thrombosis; incidence increased with prolonged duration of catheter; no significant impact on clinical course

[46]

1984

55

Case series

Autopsy, patients with PAC within 1 month of death

53% RH endocardial lesions, 7% infective endocarditis, with pulmonic valve (56%) and pulmonary artery (5%) being the most and least common sites, respectively

[48]

1985

56

Prospective case series

ICU patents with shock, ARDS and preoperative

12.5% advanced ventricular arrhythmia; no treatment required

[37]

1985

141

Case series

Autopsy

PAC associated with higher rate of mural thrombi compared with central lines

[3]

1987

3263

Retrospective

Patients with acute myocardial infarction

Increased length of hospital stay associated with PAC use; no long-term benefit

[33]

1988

88 (30/28/30)

RCT (PAC control versus supranormal DO2 versus CVP)

Preoperative high-risk surgical patients

PAC had no effect on outcome unless used to guide therapy

[47]

1989

279 PAC

Prospective

ICU patients

3% new RBBB

[14]

1989

1094 (537/557)

Controlled prospective cohort

Elective coronary artery bypass graft

No significant difference in outcome between PAC and CVP groups

[4]

1990

5841

Retrospective, analysis of PAC registry

Patients with acute myocardial infarction

Higher in-hospital mortality in CHF patients; thought to be related to use of PAC in sicker patients

[17]

1991

33 (16/17)

RCT (PAC versus no PAC)

 

Nonsignificant benefit in favor of not receiving PAC

[43]

1991

297

Prospective, incidence study

Medical/surgical ICU

22% local infection and 0.7% bacteremia; factors associated with high-risk catheter-related infection included skin colonization, IJ insertion, catheter placement >3 days and insertion in the OR

[28]

1994

100 (50/50)

RCT (supra-normal DO2 versus normal DO2)

Severe circulatory shock without response to fluid challenge

Increase mortality in treatment group

[29]

1995

762 (252/253/257)

RCT (control versus supranormal DO2 versus minimal SvO2)

Multicenter, high-risk surgical patients with hemorrhagic, septic ARDS and trauma

No difference in mortality, organ dysfunction, or length of stay

[45]

1995

32442

Retrospective chart review

OR and ICU

0.03% PA rupture with 70% mortality rate

[39]

1995

630 PAC placements in 118 patients

Retrospective analysis

Patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

13% catheter related sepsis, 2% CHF, 1.2% DVT, 1% pneumothorax; no PA rupture

[5]

1996

2016 (1008/1008)

Prospective cohort, case matching analysis

Critically ill patients

Increased mortality, cost of care and length of ICU stay in PAC group

[22]

1997

104 (51/53)

RCT (routine PAC versus clinically indicated PAC)

Low-risk elective abdominal vascular surgery

Routine PAC had no benefit in mortality or morbidity

[21]

1998

120 (60/60)

RCT (PAC versus no PAC)

Surgical low-risk AAA repair

No benefit, possibly with higher intraoperative complications

[6]

2000

10,217

Retrospective database study

Nonoperative patients in medical and surgical ICU

Direct association of PAC use with admission in surgical ICU, white race, care given by nonintensivist, and having private insurance

[8]

2001

4059 (221/3838)

Prospective, observational cohort

Elective major noncardiac surgery

Increase in cardiac and noncardiac events with PAC

[18]

2003

1994 (997/997)

RCT (PAC versus no PAC)

High risk, >6-year-old surgical patients

No benefit in PAC group, higher PE in catheter group, survival rate favored non-PAC group

[20]

2003

676 (335/341)

RCT (PAC versus no PAC)

Multicenter; shock and ARDS patients

No impact of PAC on mortality or morbidity

[23]

2005

1041 (519/522)

RCT (PAC versus no PAC)

Multi-center, all adult ICUs

No evidence of benefit or hospital mortality, 10% complications but not fatal

[24]

2005

433 (215/218)

RCT (PAC versus no PAC)

Multicenter, severely symptomatic CHF patients

No evidence of benefit or overall mortality, 5% complications but none fatal

  1. AAA, abdominal aortic aneurysm; ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome; CHF, congestive heart failure; CVP, central venous pressure; DO2, oxygen delivery; DVT, deep venous thrombosis; ICU, intensive care unit; IJ, internal jugular; MI, myocardial infarction; OR, operating room; PA, pulmonary artery; PAC, pulmonary artery catheter; PE, pulmonary embolism; RHC, right heart catheterization; RH, right heart; RBBB, right bundle branch block; RCT, randomized clinical trial; SvO2, mixed venous oxygen saturation; TEV, thrombotic endocardial vegetation; VT, ventricular tachycardia.