Jacka Michael J, Cohen Marsha M, To Teresa, Devitt J Hugh, Byrick Robert
Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, University of Toronto, Canada.
Can J Anaesth. 2002 Mar;49(3):276-82. doi: 10.1007/BF03020527.
The pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) is commonly used in anesthesiology and critical care, but its appropriate (where benefit exceeds risk) application is unknown. This study describes current clinical practice attitudes among anesthesiologists in cardiac and vascular surgery in an effort to determine the most appropriate indications for use of the PAC.
Anonymous, cross-sectional, mailed survey of anesthesiologists in Canada and the USA. Opinions of anesthesiologists about the appropriateness of PAC application were assessed in 36 clinical scenarios, using a nine-point Likert scale. The RAND method was adapted to identify appropriate, inappropriate, and uncertain indications for PAC application.
Seventy-seven percent of 345 anesthesiologists responded. They agreed strongly (87%) that use of the PAC is appropriate in patients with severe ventricular impairment and unstable angina. Agreement was also present with ventricular impairment (74%) or unstable angina (55%) alone, but was less strong. A majority (53%) rated the PAC as not appropriate in the routine patient without complicating risk factors. Those who used the PAC more frequently, who had a greater practice volume, and who practised in Canada rated PAC use to be more appropriate in more scenarios. Those who did more continuing medical education rated PAC use to be less appropriate.
While the ideal evaluation of the PAC in clinical practice would be a randomized controlled trial, such an undertaking is time-consuming, expensive, of limited generalizability, and requires clinical equipoise. This study found strong agreement that PAC application is appropriate in some patient scenarios, and agreement that it is inappropriate in others. Description of current practice using this method may identify scenarios where randomized evaluation of the PAC, or other technologies, is likely unnecessary, and others where it is highly likely to be highly beneficial.
肺动脉导管(PAC)常用于麻醉学和重症监护领域,但其合理应用(即获益超过风险)尚不明确。本研究描述了心脏和血管外科麻醉医生当前的临床实践态度,以确定使用PAC的最恰当指征。
对加拿大和美国的麻醉医生进行匿名横断面邮寄调查。采用九点李克特量表,在36种临床场景中评估麻醉医生对PAC应用合理性的看法。采用兰德方法来确定PAC应用的恰当、不恰当和不确定指征。
345名麻醉医生中有77%做出了回应。他们强烈同意(87%),PAC适用于严重心室功能不全和不稳定型心绞痛患者。对于仅有心室功能不全(74%)或不稳定型心绞痛(55%)的患者,也存在一定程度的认同,但认同程度稍低。大多数(53%)人认为在没有复杂危险因素的常规患者中使用PAC不合适。那些更频繁使用PAC、手术量更大且在加拿大执业的人认为在更多场景中使用PAC更合适。参加继续医学教育较多的人认为使用PAC不太合适。
虽然在临床实践中对PAC进行理想评估需要进行随机对照试验,但这样做耗时、昂贵、普遍性有限且需要临床 equipoise。本研究发现,对于PAC在某些患者场景中的应用存在强烈共识,而在其他场景中则认为不合适。用这种方法描述当前的实践情况可能会确定哪些场景可能无需对PAC或其他技术进行随机评估,而哪些场景可能会带来极大益处。