ArticleJournal of anesthesia2025
Effect of pulmonary artery catheters in patients with cardiovascular diseases stratified based on severity: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to assess the effect of pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use on clinical outcomes in cardiovascular patients stratified by severity using the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III score.
methodsThis study was conducted at Hamamatsu University Hospital and included intensive care unit (ICU) patients with cardiovascular diseases from April 2019 to March 2024. Patients were stratified into overall, severe, and critically severe cohorts based on their APACHE III scores. PAC group included those with PAC use within 24 h of ICU admission, while non-users formed the control group. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, whereas the secondary outcomes included ICU mortality, initiation of renal replacement therapy, mechanical circulatory support-free days at day 28, and lengths of hospital and ICU stay. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline differences.
resultsOf the 1,693 patients, matched pairs were created for 210, 136, and 62 in the overall, severe, and critically severe cohorts, respectively. In-hospital mortality did not differ significantly between PAC and control groups across all cohorts (overall: 8.6% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.61; severe: 14.0% vs. 14.0%, p > 0.99; critically severe: 22.6% vs. 25.8%, p = 0.68). Among secondary outcomes, PAC use was significantly associated with increased renal replacement therapy and prolonged ICU stays in the overall and critically severe cohorts.
conclusionsPAC use was not associated with improved outcomes in critically ill patients with cardiovascular diseases, even among those with a high mortality risk, suggesting the need for further studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40133653What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.