Pulmonary artery catheterization in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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