Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42366175›Full record

Trial reportAnaesthesia2026

Pulmonary artery catheters or central venous catheters for cardiac surgery: the PUMA Pilot randomised clinical trial.

Luke A Perry, Reny Segal, Marco Larobina, Rinaldo Bellomo, Julian A Smith, Jesselyn Sin, Katrina Danial, Alistair R D McLean, Lisa Q Rong, Mario Gaudino and 13 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Anaesthesia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

Luke A PerryVictorian Cardiac Anaesthesia Research Laboratory, Department of Surgery, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Reny SegalDepartment of Anaesthesia and Pain Management, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Marco LarobinaDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Victorian Heart Hospital, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Rinaldo Bellomo
Julian A SmithDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Victorian Heart Hospital, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jesselyn SinVictorian Cardiac Anaesthesia Research Laboratory, Department of Surgery, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Katrina DanialVictorian Cardiac Anaesthesia Research Laboratory, Department of Surgery, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Alistair R D McLeanCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Lisa Q RongDepartment of Anesthesiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Mario GaudinoDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Thomas SchwannDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Corewell Health, Royal Oak, MI, USA.
Marie PalumboDepartment of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Victorian Heart Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Luke O'HalloranDepartment of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Victorian Heart Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Brian CheeVictorian Cardiac Anaesthesia Research Laboratory, Department of Surgery, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jinesh PatelVictorian Cardiac Anaesthesia Research Laboratory, Department of Surgery, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Andrew SilversDepartment of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Victorian Heart Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jayme BennettsDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Victorian Heart Hospital, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Silvana MarascoDepartment of Surgery, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Tim G CoulsonDepartment of Critical Care, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Alistair RoyseDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Emily SeeDepartment of Critical Care, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Lachlan F MilesDepartment of Critical Care, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
ANZCA Clinical Trials Network

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPulmonary artery catheters are used widely in cardiac surgery despite observed associations with worse outcomes and guidelines that recommend against their routine use. No adequately powered randomised trials are available.

methodsThe PUMA Pilot was a multicentre, randomised, parallel assignment, open-label, pilot and feasibility trial conducted at three tertiary cardiac surgery centres. Eligible patients were adults undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, aortic valve replacement or surgery on the aortic root or ascending aorta with or without aortic valve replacement, with a predicted surgical mortality of < 2%. Patients were allocated randomly to receive a pulmonary artery catheter or a central venous catheter inserted immediately before surgery. The primary feasibility outcome was protocol compliance, defined as receiving the assigned intervention without crossover. Secondary feasibility outcomes were eligibility rate; recruitment proportion and rate; data completeness; and rate of clinician refusal.

resultsWe screened 480 patients and 206 (43%) were eligible; 150/203 (74%) approached provided informed consent. Three of 206 (1%) eligible patients were not included due to clinician refusal. Of 149 patients who were randomised, 76 were assigned to the pulmonary artery catheter group and 73 to the central venous catheter group. For the primary feasibility outcome, 147 patients (99%) received the allocated intervention. Data were complete for 144 (97%) patients. Median (IQR [range]) days alive and at home at 30 days was 23.7 (21.9-24.7 [7.0-26.0]) in the pulmonary artery catheter group and 22.9 (20.8-23.9 [8.6-25.8]) in the central venous catheter group. Acute kidney injury occurred in 26/76 (34%) patients in the pulmonary artery catheter group and 14/73 (19%) in the central venous catheter group. DISCUSSION: A randomised trial of pulmonary artery catheters compared with central venous catheters in low-risk cardiac surgery is feasible. Such a trial would address significant practice variability and inform international guidelines.

Indexed as

Cardiac Surgical ProceduresCatheterization, Central VenousCatheterization, Swan-GanzCentral Venous CathetersAgedFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot Projectscardiac anaesthesiacardiac surgeryfeasibility studieshaemodynamic monitoringpulmonary artery catheter

Identifiers

PMID42366175
PMCPMC13551237

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.