PURPOSE: The pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) is commonly used in anesthesiology and critical care, but its appropriate (where benefit exceeds risk) application is unknown. This study describes current clinical practice attitudes among anesthesiologists in cardiac and vascular surgery in an effort to determine the most appropriate indications for use of the PAC. METHODS: Anonymous, cross-sectional, mailed survey of anesthesiologists in Canada and the USA. Opinions of anesthesiologists about the appropriateness of PAC application were assessed in 36 clinical scenarios, using a nine-point Likert scale. The RAND method was adapted to identify appropriate, inappropriate, and uncertain indications for PAC application. RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of 345 anesthesiologists responded. They agreed strongly (87%) that use of the PAC is appropriate in patients with severe ventricular impairment and unstable angina. Agreement was also present with ventricular impairment (74%) or unstable angina (55%) alone, but was less strong. A majority (53%) rated the PAC as not appropriate in the routine patient without complicating risk factors. Those who used the PAC more frequently, who had a greater practice volume, and who practised in Canada rated PAC use to be more appropriate in more scenarios. Those who did more continuing medical education rated PAC use to be less appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: While the ideal evaluation of the PAC in clinical practice would be a randomized controlled trial, such an undertaking is time-consuming, expensive, of limited generalizability, and requires clinical equipoise. This study found strong agreement that PAC application is appropriate in some patient scenarios, and agreement that it is inappropriate in others. Description of current practice using this method may identify scenarios where randomized evaluation of the PAC, or other technologies, is likely unnecessary, and others where it is highly likely to be highly beneficial.
PURPOSE: The pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) is commonly used in anesthesiology and critical care, but its appropriate (where benefit exceeds risk) application is unknown. This study describes current clinical practice attitudes among anesthesiologists in cardiac and vascular surgery in an effort to determine the most appropriate indications for use of the PAC. METHODS: Anonymous, cross-sectional, mailed survey of anesthesiologists in Canada and the USA. Opinions of anesthesiologists about the appropriateness of PAC application were assessed in 36 clinical scenarios, using a nine-point Likert scale. The RAND method was adapted to identify appropriate, inappropriate, and uncertain indications for PAC application. RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of 345 anesthesiologists responded. They agreed strongly (87%) that use of the PAC is appropriate in patients with severe ventricular impairment and unstable angina. Agreement was also present with ventricular impairment (74%) or unstable angina (55%) alone, but was less strong. A majority (53%) rated the PAC as not appropriate in the routine patient without complicating risk factors. Those who used the PAC more frequently, who had a greater practice volume, and who practised in Canada rated PAC use to be more appropriate in more scenarios. Those who did more continuing medical education rated PAC use to be less appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: While the ideal evaluation of the PAC in clinical practice would be a randomized controlled trial, such an undertaking is time-consuming, expensive, of limited generalizability, and requires clinical equipoise. This study found strong agreement that PAC application is appropriate in some patient scenarios, and agreement that it is inappropriate in others. Description of current practice using this method may identify scenarios where randomized evaluation of the PAC, or other technologies, is likely unnecessary, and others where it is highly likely to be highly beneficial.
Authors: Valentina Bergamaschi; Gian Luca Vignazia; Antonio Messina; Davide Colombo; Gianmaria Cammarota; Francesco Della Corte; Egidio Traversi; Paolo Navalesi Journal: Braz J Anesthesiol Date: 2018-11-06