Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions · 2023
Clinical impact of pulmonary artery catheter in patients with cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание 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.
Yoo Tae Kyung, Miyashita Satoshi, Davoudi Farideh, Imahira Ubumi, Al-Obaidi Abdallah, Chweich Haval, Huggins Gordon S, Kimmelstiel Carey, Kapur Navin K
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) for the management of cardiogenic shock (CS) remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis exploring the association between PAC use and mortality among patients with CS.
METHODS: Published studies of patients with CS treated with or without PAC hemodynamic guidance were retrieved from MEDLINE and PubMed databases from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2021. The primary outcome was mortality, which was defined as a combination of in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes assessed 30-day and in-hospital mortality separately. To assess the quality of nonrandomized studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), a well-established scoring system was used. We analyzed outcomes for each study using NOS with a threshold value of >6, indicating high quality. We also performed analyses based on the countries of the studies conducted.
RESULTS: Six studies with a total of 930,530 patients with CS were analyzed. Of these, 85,769 patients were in the PAC-treated group, and 844,761 patients did not receive a PAC. PAC use was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality (PAC: 4.6 % to 41.5 % vs control: 18.8 % to 51.0 %) (OR 0.63, 95 % CI: 0.41-0.97, I2 = 0.96). Subgroup analyses demonstrated no difference in the risk of mortality between NOS ≥ 6 studies and NOS < 6 studies (p-interaction = 0.57), 30-day and in-hospital mortality (p-interaction = 0.83), or the country of origin of studies (p-interaction = 0.08).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of PAC in patients with CS may be associated with decreased mortality. These data support the need for a randomized controlled trial testing the utility of PAC use in CS.
METHODS: Published studies of patients with CS treated with or without PAC hemodynamic guidance were retrieved from MEDLINE and PubMed databases from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2021. The primary outcome was mortality, which was defined as a combination of in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes assessed 30-day and in-hospital mortality separately. To assess the quality of nonrandomized studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), a well-established scoring system was used. We analyzed outcomes for each study using NOS with a threshold value of >6, indicating high quality. We also performed analyses based on the countries of the studies conducted.
RESULTS: Six studies with a total of 930,530 patients with CS were analyzed. Of these, 85,769 patients were in the PAC-treated group, and 844,761 patients did not receive a PAC. PAC use was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality (PAC: 4.6 % to 41.5 % vs control: 18.8 % to 51.0 %) (OR 0.63, 95 % CI: 0.41-0.97, I2 = 0.96). Subgroup analyses demonstrated no difference in the risk of mortality between NOS ≥ 6 studies and NOS < 6 studies (p-interaction = 0.57), 30-day and in-hospital mortality (p-interaction = 0.83), or the country of origin of studies (p-interaction = 0.08).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of PAC in patients with CS may be associated with decreased mortality. These data support the need for a randomized controlled trial testing the utility of PAC use in CS.