Circulation reports · 2025
Use of a Pulmonary Artery Catheter in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kondo Toru, Nakashima Takahiro, Yamamoto Takeshi, Nakayama Naoki, Hanada Hiroyuki, Hashiba Katsutaka, Kirigaya Jin, Ishizu Tomoko, Hosoya Yumiko, Katasako-Yabumoto Aya, Okazaki Yusuke, Yamamoto Masahiro, Sakamoto Kazuo, Arai Marina, Osawa Takumi, Tanaka Akihito, Matsuo Kunihiro, Yamaguchi Junichi, Mano Toshiaki, Kojima Sunao, Noguchi Teruo, Tsujimoto Yasushi, Kikuchi Migaku, Funazaki Toshikazu, Tahara Yoshio, Nonogi Hiroshi, Matoba Tetsuya
Аннотация
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.
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.