Pulmonary artery catheterization in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Cardiogenic shock carries high morbidity and mortality. Pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC) allows invasive hemodynamic assessment and tailored therapy; however, evidence supporting this practice is sparse. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing PAC versus no PAC in cardiogenic shock. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and grey literature. We screened references, abstracted data and evaluated risk of bias in duplicate. We pooled data using a random-effects model and evaluated the quality of evidence using GRADE. Outcomes of interest were mortality and length of stay (LOS). Results We identified 13 observational studies (1,982,047 patients) and no randomized controlled trials; 12 studies were at high risk of bias. When pooling adjusted results, PAC was associated with reduced mortality at hospital discharge (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.50–0.82) and at longest available follow-up (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.49–0.87). Unadjusted LOS was 5.0 days longer (95% CI 4.93–5.07) with PAC. Quality of evidence was very low for all outcomes. Conclusion Based on very low quality evidence, PAC use in patients with cardiogenic shock may be associated with lower mortality. The observed increase in hospital LOS may represent survivor bias or relate to more aggressive management with PAC. Overall, these results support consideration of PAC for hemodynamic assessment and tailored therapy in cardiogenic shock. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".