Pulmonary artery catheter use and in-hospital outcomes in cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the association of intraoperative pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use with in-hospital outcomes in cardiac surgical patients. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library (Wiley) databases were screened for studies that compared cardiac surgical patients receiving intraoperative PAC with controls and reporting in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay, cost of hospitalization, fluid volume administered, intubation time, inotropes use, acute kidney injury (AKI), stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and infections. RESULTS: Seven studies (25 853 patients, 88.6% undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery) were included. In-hospital mortality was significantly increased with PAC use [odds ratio (OR) 1.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-2.20, P = 0.04]; PAC use was also associated with greater intraoperative inotrope use (OR 2.61; 95% CI 1.54-4.41) and costs [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.20; 95% CI 0.16-0.23], longer intensive care unit stay (SMD = 0.29; 95% CI 0.25-0.33), and longer intubation time (SMD = 0.44; 95% CI 0.12-0.76). CONCLUSIONS: PAC use is associated with significantly increased odds of in-hospital mortality, but the amount and quality of the available evidence is limited. Prospective randomized trials testing the effect of PAC on the outcomes of cardiac surgical patients are urgently needed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".