Pulmonary artery catheters: Evolving rates and reasons for use*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Randomized trials have demonstrated risks and failed to establish a clear benefit for the use of the pulmonary artery catheter. We assessed rates of pulmonary artery catheter use in multiple centers over 5 yrs, variables associated with their use, and how these variables changed over time (2002-2006). DESIGN: A multicenter longitudinal study using the Hamilton Regional Critical Care Database. A two-level multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine significant variables associated with pulmonary artery catheter use and whether these varied over time. SETTING: Academic intensive care units in Hamilton, Canada. PATIENTS: We identified patients from five intensive care units who received a pulmonary artery catheter within the first 2 days of intensive care unit admission. INTERVENTIONS: Pulmonary artery catheter use over a 5-yr period. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 15,006 patients, 1,921 (12.8%) had a pulmonary artery catheter. Adjusted rates of pulmonary artery catheter use decreased from 16.4% to 6.5% over 5 yrs. Determinants of pulmonary artery catheter use included Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.06; p < .0001), elective surgical status (OR, 2.82; CI, 2.29-3.48; p < .0001), postabdominal aortic aneurysm repair (OR, 10.91; CI, 8.24-14.45; p < .0001), cardiogenic shock (OR, 5.31; CI, 3.35-8.42; p < .0001), sepsis (OR, 2.83; CI, 1.94-4.13; p < .0001), vasoactive infusion use (OR, 4.04; CI, 3.47-4.71; p < .0001), and mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.21; CI, 1.86-2.63; p < .0001). Physician's base specialty and local intensive care unit were also associated with pulmonary artery catheter use (p < .0001). The determinants of pulmonary artery catheter use did not change over time. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a >50% reduction in the rate of pulmonary artery catheter use over 5 yrs. Patient factors predicting pulmonary artery catheter use were illness severity, specific diagnoses, and the need for advanced life support. Nonpatient factors predicting pulmonary artery catheter use were intensive care unit and the attending physician's base specialty.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".