Harvey S, Young D, Brampton W, Cooper A B, Doig G, Sibbald W, Rowan K
(ICNARC) Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, Tavistock HouseTavistock Square, London, UK WC1H 9HR.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19(3):CD003408. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003408.pub2.
Pulmonary artery catheterization was adopted about 30 years ago and widely disseminated without rigorous evaluation as to whether it benefited critically ill patients. The technique is used to measure cardiac output and pressures in the pulmonary circulation to guide diagnosis and treatment. Clinicians believe these data can improve patients' outcomes, even in the absence of consensus about the specific interpretation of the data.
To assess the effect of pulmonary artery catheterization on mortality and cost of care in adult intensive care patients.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2006); MEDLINE (all records to April 2006); EMBASE (all records to April 2006); CINAHL (all records to April 2006) and reference lists of articles. We contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field.
We included all randomized controlled trials in adults, comparing management with and without a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC).
We screened the titles and abstracts of the electronic search results and obtained the full text of studies of possible relevance for independent review. We determined the final results of the literature search by consensus between the authors. We did not contact study authors for additional information.
We identified 12 studies. Mortality was reported as hospital, 28-day, 30-day, or intensive care unit. We considered studies of high-risk surgery patients (eight studies) and general intensive care patients (four studies) separately for the meta-analysis. The pooled odds ratio for the studies of general intensive care patients was 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.26) and for the studies of high-risk surgery patients 0.99 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.24). Of the eight studies of high-risk surgery patients, five evaluated the effectiveness of pre-operative optimization but there was no difference in mortality when these studies were examined separately. Pulmonary artery catheterization did not affect intensive care unit (reported by 10 studies) or hospital (reported by nine studies) length of stay. Four studies, conducted in the United States, measured costs based on hospital charges billed to patients, which on average were higher in the PAC groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: To date, there have been two multi-centre trials of the effectiveness of PACs for managing critically ill patients admitted to intensive care, although only one was adequately powered. Efficacy studies are needed to determine optimal management protocols and patient groups who could benefit from management with a PAC.
肺动脉导管插入术约在30年前开始应用,并在未对其是否使重症患者获益进行严格评估的情况下广泛传播。该技术用于测量心输出量和肺循环压力以指导诊断和治疗。临床医生认为这些数据可改善患者的预后,即便对于这些数据的具体解读尚无共识。
评估肺动脉导管插入术对成年重症监护患者死亡率和护理费用的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(《Cochrane图书馆》,2006年第2期);MEDLINE(截至2006年4月的所有记录);EMBASE(截至2006年4月的所有记录);CINAHL(截至2006年4月的所有记录)以及文章的参考文献列表。我们联系了该领域的制造商和研究人员。
我们纳入了所有针对成年人的随机对照试验,比较使用和不使用肺动脉导管(PAC)的管理方式。
我们筛选了电子检索结果的标题和摘要,并获取了可能相关研究的全文以进行独立评审。我们通过作者间的共识确定文献检索的最终结果。我们未联系研究作者获取更多信息。
我们识别出12项研究。死亡率报告为住院死亡率、28天死亡率、30天死亡率或重症监护病房死亡率。我们在进行荟萃分析时分别考虑了高危手术患者的研究(8项研究)和普通重症监护患者的研究(4项研究)。普通重症监护患者研究的合并比值比为1.05(95%置信区间(CI)0.87至1.26),高危手术患者研究的合并比值比为0.99(95%CI 0.73至1.24)。在8项高危手术患者的研究中,5项评估了术前优化的有效性,但对这些研究单独进行审查时死亡率并无差异。肺动脉导管插入术未影响重症监护病房住院时间(10项研究报告)或住院时间(9项研究报告)。在美国进行的4项研究根据向患者收取的医院费用来衡量成本,平均而言PAC组的费用更高。
迄今为止,已有两项关于PACs用于管理入住重症监护病房的重症患者有效性的多中心试验,尽管只有一项试验有足够的效力。需要进行疗效研究以确定最佳管理方案以及可能从PAC管理中获益的患者群体。