Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Wheeler, Arthur P
• Bernard, Gordon R
• Thompson, B Taylor
• Schoenfeld, David
• Wiedemann, Herbert P
• deBoisblanc, Ben
• Connors, Jr, Alfred F
• Hite, R Duncan
• Harabin, Andrea L

Titel

Pulmonary-Artery versus Central Venous Catheter to Guide Treatment of Acute Lung Injury

Ist Teil von

• The New England journal of medicine, 2006-05, Vol.354 (21), p.2213-2224

Ort / Verlag

Boston, MA: Massachusetts Medical Society

Erscheinungsjahr

2006

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

Alma/SFX Local Collection

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Hemodynamic monitoring is a common physiological intervention in patients with acute lung injury. In this randomized, controlled trial in which patient care was dictated by a specific hemodynamic protocol, there was no significant difference in 60-day mortality whether monitoring was performed with a pulmonary-artery catheter or a central venous catheter. Hemodynamic monitoring is a common physiological intervention in patients with acute lung injury. In this trial there was no significant difference in 60-day mortality whether monitoring was performed with a pulmonary-artery catheter or a central venous catheter. The pulmonary-artery catheter (PAC) provides unique hemodynamic data, including the cardiac index and pulmonary-artery–occlusion pressure. People who advocate the use of the PAC note that the clinician's ability to predict intravascular pressure with the use of this catheter is poor 1 – 3 ; central venous pressure, as obtained by means of the PAC, correlates imperfectly with pulmonary-artery–occlusion pressure 4 – 6 ; and the insertion of a PAC often changes therapy. 6 – 8 Although many critically ill patients receive PACs, 9 no clear clinical benefit has been associated with their use. 10 – 12 Practitioners often misinterpret the information obtained by means of a PAC or act . . .