Five years ago in JAMA,1 I
commended the critical care community for beginning in earnest the arduous
process of evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheterization
(PAC) in the treatment of high-risk surgical patients and critically ill patients
cared for in the intensive care unit (ICU). I deemed this process arduous
because over the years following its introduction in the 1970s, this technology
had found widespread application in the ICU and perioperative setting, despite
a remarkable lack of high-quality evidence supporting such use. An observational
retrospective study published in 1996 suggested PAC use might be associated
with adverse outcome.2 Thus, the proper study
of PAC using prospective randomized study design represented a rigorous and
necessary “back pedaling” from practice current at the time, never
a simple process. In this issue of JAMA, 2 important
articles concerning this evaluation process are published,3,4 making
it timely to revisit recent studies and determine what has been learned.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Web of Science® Times Cited: 17
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
More Listings atJAMACareerCenter.com >
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.