Cargando…

Effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheter monitoring for patients with cardiogenic shock of various causes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Invasive hemodynamic monitoring with pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC) can be useful in the assessment of changes in cardiac function and hemodynamic status; however, the benefits of PAC in the management of c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Jinho, Lee, Jung-Bok, Kim, Ah-Ram, Hyun, Junho, Lee, Sang-Eun, Kim, Min-Seok
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10089870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37065575
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-22-1139
_version_ 1785022854051397632
author Lee, Jinho
Lee, Jung-Bok
Kim, Ah-Ram
Hyun, Junho
Lee, Sang-Eun
Kim, Min-Seok
author_facet Lee, Jinho
Lee, Jung-Bok
Kim, Ah-Ram
Hyun, Junho
Lee, Sang-Eun
Kim, Min-Seok
author_sort Lee, Jinho
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Invasive hemodynamic monitoring with pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC) can be useful in the assessment of changes in cardiac function and hemodynamic status; however, the benefits of PAC in the management of cardiogenic shock are not known well. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials, comparing in-hospital mortality between PAC and non-PAC groups of cardiogenic shock patients with various underlying causes. Articles were obtained from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. We reviewed titles, abstracts, and full articles and evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework. We used a random-effects model to compare studies in terms of in-hospital mortality findings. RESULTS: We included twelve articles in our meta-analysis. Mortality among patients with cardiogenic shock was not significantly different between the PAC and the non-PAC groups [risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73–1.02, I(2)=100%, P<0.01]. Two studies investigating cardiogenic shock caused by acute decompensated heart failure determined lower in-hospital mortality in the PAC group than in the non-PAC group (RR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.28–0.87, I(2)=45%, P=0.18). Six studies investigating cardiogenic shock of any cause determined lower in-hospital mortality in the PAC group than in the non-PAC group (RR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72–0.97, I(2)=99%, P<0.01). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the PAC and non-PAC groups of patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to acute coronary syndrome (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.81–1.25, I(2)=99%, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our meta-analysis demonstrated no significant association between PAC monitoring and in-hospital mortality among patients managed for cardiogenic shock. The use of PAC in the management of cardiogenic shock caused by acute decompensated heart failure was associated with lower in-hospital mortality, but there was no association between PAC monitoring and in-hospital mortality among patients with cardiogenic shock caused by acute coronary syndrome.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10089870
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100898702023-04-13 Effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheter monitoring for patients with cardiogenic shock of various causes: a systematic review and meta-analysis Lee, Jinho Lee, Jung-Bok Kim, Ah-Ram Hyun, Junho Lee, Sang-Eun Kim, Min-Seok J Thorac Dis Original Article BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Invasive hemodynamic monitoring with pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC) can be useful in the assessment of changes in cardiac function and hemodynamic status; however, the benefits of PAC in the management of cardiogenic shock are not known well. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials, comparing in-hospital mortality between PAC and non-PAC groups of cardiogenic shock patients with various underlying causes. Articles were obtained from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. We reviewed titles, abstracts, and full articles and evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework. We used a random-effects model to compare studies in terms of in-hospital mortality findings. RESULTS: We included twelve articles in our meta-analysis. Mortality among patients with cardiogenic shock was not significantly different between the PAC and the non-PAC groups [risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73–1.02, I(2)=100%, P<0.01]. Two studies investigating cardiogenic shock caused by acute decompensated heart failure determined lower in-hospital mortality in the PAC group than in the non-PAC group (RR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.28–0.87, I(2)=45%, P=0.18). Six studies investigating cardiogenic shock of any cause determined lower in-hospital mortality in the PAC group than in the non-PAC group (RR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72–0.97, I(2)=99%, P<0.01). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the PAC and non-PAC groups of patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to acute coronary syndrome (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.81–1.25, I(2)=99%, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our meta-analysis demonstrated no significant association between PAC monitoring and in-hospital mortality among patients managed for cardiogenic shock. The use of PAC in the management of cardiogenic shock caused by acute decompensated heart failure was associated with lower in-hospital mortality, but there was no association between PAC monitoring and in-hospital mortality among patients with cardiogenic shock caused by acute coronary syndrome. AME Publishing Company 2023-03-02 2023-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC10089870/ /pubmed/37065575 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-22-1139 Text en 2023 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Lee, Jinho
Lee, Jung-Bok
Kim, Ah-Ram
Hyun, Junho
Lee, Sang-Eun
Kim, Min-Seok
Effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheter monitoring for patients with cardiogenic shock of various causes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheter monitoring for patients with cardiogenic shock of various causes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheter monitoring for patients with cardiogenic shock of various causes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheter monitoring for patients with cardiogenic shock of various causes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheter monitoring for patients with cardiogenic shock of various causes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheter monitoring for patients with cardiogenic shock of various causes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheter monitoring for patients with cardiogenic shock of various causes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10089870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37065575
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-22-1139
work_keys_str_mv AT leejinho effectivenessofpulmonaryarterycathetermonitoringforpatientswithcardiogenicshockofvariouscausesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT leejungbok effectivenessofpulmonaryarterycathetermonitoringforpatientswithcardiogenicshockofvariouscausesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kimahram effectivenessofpulmonaryarterycathetermonitoringforpatientswithcardiogenicshockofvariouscausesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hyunjunho effectivenessofpulmonaryarterycathetermonitoringforpatientswithcardiogenicshockofvariouscausesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT leesangeun effectivenessofpulmonaryarterycathetermonitoringforpatientswithcardiogenicshockofvariouscausesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kimminseok effectivenessofpulmonaryarterycathetermonitoringforpatientswithcardiogenicshockofvariouscausesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis