List Archives

Tue Jan 29 17:09:05 GMT 2008

In their Conclusion the authors seem to give a very balanced view of what=
 their analysis may or may not mean. For pragmatic research you don't nee=
d to give a reason, so I don't see many grounds for criticising the way t=
hat they present this work.

It is retrospective etc, I don't think that I will change my practice now=
, but doesn't it make you think? The point of this sort of analysis is no=
t proof, it is hypothesis generation. I would have predicted the opposite=
 result (worse outcomes in the PA group) and am always interested when ev=
idence goes against my pre-conceptions.

Tim. Coats

Professor of Emergency Medicine
Leicester University.

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert F. Smith [mailto:rfsmithmd at comcast.net]=20
Sent: 29 January 2008 14:07
To: 'Trauma &amp; Critical Care mailing list'
Subject: RE: [ccm-l] PA catheters in trauma.

>From reading only the abstract, it is somewhat amazing that the authors=20=

>seem
to feel that the presence of a piece of plastic somehow confers an improv=
ed survival rate in severely injured patients. No mechanism is suggested.=
 It would be fascinating if in the paper they proposed there was some kin=
d of universally accepted algorithm for how this piece of plastic is to b=
e used.
Or even what the plastic truly and accurately does. And I doubt the patie=
nts with an ISS of 75 received much benefit from it, lol.=20

Rob Smith MD, MPH
Chicago

-----Original Message-----
From: trauma-list-bounces at trauma.org [mailto:trauma-list-bounces at trauma.o=
rg]
On Behalf Of Jeffery Hammond
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 11:20 AM
To: 'Ivan Hronek'; trauma-list at trauma.org
Cc: ccm-l at ccm-l.org
Subject: RE: [ccm-l] PA catheters in trauma.

This is a totally unsupportable conclusion.
=20
The NTDB is an unaudited data repository. This paper is retrospective, un=
controlled, descriptive epidemiology at best. Throwing a bunch of numbers=
 around and subjecting them to some mathematical manipulation doesn't mag=
ically turn them into actionable data.
=20
Jeffrey Hammond MD, MPH
New Brunswick, NJ

  _____ =20

From: ccm-l-bounces at ccm-l.org [mailto:ccm-l-bounces at ccm-l.org] On Behalf =
Of Ivan Hronek
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 10:11 PM
To: trauma-list at trauma.org
Cc: ccm-l at ccm-l.org
Subject: [ccm-l] PA catheters in trauma.

Pulmonary artery catheter use is associated with reduced mortality in sev=
erely injured patients: A National Trauma Data Bank analysis of 53,312 pa=
tients

Critical Care Medicine - Volume 34, Issue 6 (June 2006)  -

=20
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/s0090349306611061.pdf> PDF versio=
n of article=20

Feature Articles
Pulmonary artery catheter use is associated with reduced mortality in sev=
erely injured patients: A National Trauma Data Bank analysis of 53,312 pa=
tients

Randall S. Friese, MD
Shahid Shafi, MD
Larry M. Gentilello, MD=20

  _____ =20

>From Parkland Memorial Hospital, Division of Burn, Trauma, Critical=20
>Care
Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at=
 Dallas, TX
  _____ =20

The authors do not have any financial interests to disclose.

PII S0090-3493(06)61106-1

  _____ =20

 Objective:=20

To evaluate the association between pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use a=
nd
mortality in a large cohort of injured patients. We hypothesized that PAC=

use is associated with improved survival in critically injured trauma
patients.

Design:=20

Retrospective database analysis.

Setting:=20

A total of 268 level 1 trauma centers from across the United States.

Patients:=20

A total of 53,312 patients admitted to the intensive care units of the
trauma centers participating in the National Trauma Data Bank maintained =
by
the American College of Surgeons.

Measurements and Main Results:=20

The National Trauma Data Bank was queried to identify patients aged 16=A8=
C90
yrs with complete data on base deficit, and Injury Severity Score (n =3D
53,312). Patients were initially divided into two groups: those managed w=
ith
a PAC (n =3D 1,933) and those managed without a PAC (n =3D 51,379). Chi-s=
quare
and Student's t-test analysis were utilized to explore group differences =
in
mortality. In a second analysis, groups were stratified by base deficit,
Injury Severity Score, and age to further explore the influence of injury=

severity on PAC use and mortality. In addition, a logistic regression mod=
el
was developed to assess the relationship between PAC use and mortality af=
ter
adjusting for differences in age, mechanism, injury severity, injury
pattern, and co-morbidities. Overall, patients managed with a PAC were ol=
der
(45.8 =A1=C0 21.3 yrs), had higher Injury Severity Score (28.4 =A1=C0 13.=
5), worse
base deficit (-5.2 =A1=C0 6.5), and increased mortality (PAC, 29.7%; no P=
AC,
9.8%; p < .001). However, after stratification for injury severity, PAC u=
se
was associated with a survival benefit in four subgroups of patients. Eac=
h
of these groups had advanced age or increased injury severity. Specifical=
ly,
patients aged 61=A8C90 yrs, with arrival base deficit worse than -11 and
Injury Severity Score of 25=A8C75, had a decrease in the risk of death wi=
th
PAC use (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.17=A8C0.62). Three
additional groups had a similar decrease in the risk of death with PAC us=
e:
odds ratio, 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.43=A8C0.83), 0.82 (95% confi=
dence
interval, 0.44=A8C1.52), and 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.40=A8C0.98)=
=2E
Logistic regression analysis demonstrated a decreased mortality when a PA=
C
was used in the management of patients with the following severe injury
characteristics: Injury Severity Score of 25=A8C75, base deficit of less =
than
-11, or age of 61=A8C90 yrs (odds ratio, 0.593; 95% confidence interval, =
0.437
=A8C0.805).

Conclusions:=20

Trauma patients managed with a PAC are more severely injured and have a
higher mortality. However, severely injured patients (Injury Severity Sco=
re,
25=A8C75) who arrive in severe shock, and older patients, have an associa=
ted
survival benefit when managed with a PAC. This is the first study to
demonstrate a benefit of PAC use in trauma patients.

  _____ =20

Key Words:=20

    	 pulmonary artery catheter	     =09
    	 complication 	    =09
    	 injury	     =09
    	 trauma	     =09
    	 mortality 	    =09
    	 National Trauma Data Bank 	    =09

Retrospective analyses of large databases and of several randomized
controlled trials have demonstrated either no benefit or an increased ris=
k
of death in patients who are managed with a pulmonary artery catheter (PA=
C)
(
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061001>  [1] ,
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061002> [2] ,  <http=
://www.
mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&source=3DMI&sp=3D=
16240415
&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061003> [3] ,
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061004> [4] ,  <http=
://www.
mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&source=3DMI&sp=3D=
16240415
&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061005> [5] ,
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061006> [6] ,  <http=
://www.
mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&source=3DMI&sp=3D=
16240415
&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061007> [7] ). For these reasons,
several authors have questioned the utility of the PAC, and its use in
critically injured patients has been called into question.

However, most studies on PAC use were composed largely or entirely of
patients with medical illnesses (
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061001>  [1] ,
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061003> [3] ,  <http=
://www.
mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&source=3DMI&sp=3D=
16240415
&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061004> [4] ). Although PAC trials=
 in
surgical patients have been conducted, they evaluated perioperative use i=
n
high-risk patients or tested specific management techniques such as
supranormal oxygen delivery protocols (
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061002>  [2] ,
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061006> [6] ,  <http=
://www.
mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&source=3DMI&sp=3D=
16240415
&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061007> [7] ,
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061008> [8] ,  <http=
://www.
mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&source=3DMI&sp=3D=
16240415
&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061009> [9] ). No study has been
conducted to determine whether PAC use is associated with an increase in
survival after injury.

Trauma patients are different from medical patients. Medical patients
typically undergo PAC placement for management of organ failure or sepsis=
=2E
Trauma patients may receive a PAC for these same reasons, but may also
undergo PAC insertion as a means of guiding resuscitation. Therefore, the=

outcomes associated with PAC use in trauma patients may be different. The=

purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between PAC use and=

mortality in a large cohort of injured patients. We hypothesized that PAC=

use is associated with improved survival in critically injured trauma
patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS=20

The National Trauma Data Bank is an on-going project of the American Coll=
ege
of Surgeons that collects data from participating trauma centers around t=
he
country in a standardized format. For the time period of our analysis, th=
e
National Trauma Data Bank contained the records of >450,000 patients from=

268 trauma centers, 20% of whom were admitted to the intensive care unit.=

This provides an opportunity to explore the association between PAC use a=
nd
outcomes in an age- and severity-adjusted contemporaneous cohort of traum=
a
patients managed with and without a PAC.

Data were obtained for the period of January 1994 through December 2001.
Patients were included if they survived for >48 hrs, underwent at least o=
ne
diagnostic or therapeutic procedure, and were 16=A8C90 yrs of age with
complete information on survival, Injury Severity Score (ISS), and initia=
l
base deficit. These criteria identified 53,312 patients. The study
population was divided into two groups: those who underwent insertion of =
a
PAC during hospital stay (n =3D 1,933) and those who did not (n =3D 51,37=
9).

Patients were first compared by age, preexisting conditions, injury type,=

injury severity, and complications using chi-square analysis. Injury
severity was estimated by ISS (anatomic measurement) and emergency
department (ED) base deficit (physiologic measurement). Stratified analys=
is
was then conducted based on age, ISS, and ED base deficit. The relationsh=
ip
between PAC use and survival was measured within each stratum using
chi-square or Fisher's exact test.

We chose ISS, which systematically incorporates injuries from multiple bo=
dy
regions into an overall score, as an anatomic marker of injury severity
because it is a well-validated method of stratifying patients after injur=
y
and has a strong correlation with mortality (
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061010>  [10] ,
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061011> [11] ). The
strength of this correlation is improved when it is coupled with a
physiologic measurement of injury severity, such as the base deficit (
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061012>  [12] ,
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061013> [13] ).

Logistic regression analysis was used to develop a parsimonious model tha=
t
predicted mortality after injury. The factors included in the model were =
PAC
use, age, ED base deficit, ISS, presence of co-morbid conditions (liver,
kidney, or heart disease), mechanism of injury (blunt vs. penetrating), a=
nd
specific injury pattern (head, chest, or abdominal injury) as quantified =
by
the Abbreviated Injury Scale (
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061014> [14]). Using=
 the
patient characteristics associated with more severe injury (advanced age,=

elevated ISS, and abnormal ED base deficit), the study population was
divided into two groups: those with severe injury characteristics and tho=
se
without. The model was then applied to each of these two groups to determ=
ine
the influence of injury severity on the association between PAC use and
mortality.

Data are presented as mean =A1=C0 sd for continuous variables and as prop=
ortions
for categorical variables; p < .05 was considered significant for all
analyses. SPSS (SPSS, Chicago, IL) for Windows and SAS (SAS Institute, Ca=
ry,
NC) for Windows were used for data management and analysis. This research=

was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Texas=

Southwestern Medical Center.

RESULTS=20

Overall, patients managed with a PAC were older, had higher ISS, greater =
ED
base deficit (
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#tbl1> Table 1), and higher=

mortality (PAC, 29.7%; no PAC, 9.8%; odds ratio, 3.58; 95% confidence
interval, 3.26=A8C3.93).

Table 1   --  Demographics, injury, and patient characteristics

 	  	 PAC	 No PAC	 p Value=09
Demographics (n =3D 53,312)=09
 	 n	 1,933	 51,379	  =09
 	 Age, yrs	 45.8 =A1=C021.3	 39.5 =A1=C018.3	 <.001=09
 	 Injury Severity Score	 28.4 =A1=C013.5	 15.9 =A1=C012.3	 <.001=09
 	 Initial base deficit	 -5.3 =A1=C06.5	 -1.4 =A1=C08.0	 <.001=09
Injury characteristics
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#tbl1fn1> [a] (n =3D 47,654=
)=09
 	 n	 1,829	 45,825	  =09
 	 Spinal Injury,% (n =3D8,138)	 24.9	 16.8	 <.001=09
 	 Abdominal injury,% (n =3D12,134)	 39.1	 24.9	 <.001=09
 	 Head injury,% (n =3D21,101)	 60.4	 43.6	 <.001=09
 	 Chest injury,% (n =3D18,608)	 65.3	 38.0	 <.001=09
 	 At least one AIS of =A1=DD3,% (n =3D34,702)	 96.9	 71.9	 <.001=09
Preexisting conditions
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#tbl1fn2> [b] (n =3D 16,722=
)=09
 	 n	 1,574	 15,148	  =09
 	 Cardiac disease,% (n =3D13,209)	 96.1	 77.2	 <.001=09
 	 Diabetes,% (n =3D1,252)	 4.8	 7.8	 <.001=09
 	 Pulmonary disease,% (n =3D993)	 4.2	 6.1	 .002=09
 	 Obesity,% (n =3D258)	 1.1	 1.6	 .177=09
 	 Hepatic disease,% (n =3D126)	 0.6	 0.8	 .569=09
 	 Renal disease,% (n =3D46)	 0.2	 0.3	 .501=09
Complications
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#tbl1fn3> [c] (n =3D 8,288)=
=09
 	 n	 1,000	 7,288	  =09
 	 Infection,% (n =3D4,661)	 62.3	 55.4	 <.001=09
 	 Pneumonia,% (n =3D3,760)	 56.9	 43.8	 <.001=09
 	 ARDS,% (n =3D1,089)	 22.3	 11.9	 <.001=09
 	 Renal failure,% (n =3D587)	 13.0	 6.3	 <.001=09
 	 MI,% (n =3D559)	 8.2	 6.5	 .05=09
 	 VTE,% (n =3D507)	 5.4	 6.2	 .313=09

PAC, pulmonary artery catheter; AIS, Abbreviated Injury Score; ARDS, acut=
e
respiratory distress syndrome; MI, myocardial infarction; VTE, venous
thromboembolism.

a    	A total of 5,658 patients with incomplete data for injury
characteristics were excluded;=09
b    	36,590 patients with incomplete data for pre-existing conditions
were excluded;=09
c    	45,024 patients with incomplete data for complication conditions
were excluded.=09

Patients with spine, abdominal, chest, or head injury and those with at
least one Abbreviated Injury Scale score of =A1=DD3, were more likely to =
be
managed with a PAC (
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#tbl1> Table 1). In those p=
atients
with a preexisting condition (n =3D 16,722), cardiac disease was the most=

common in both groups (
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#tbl1> Table 1). Those pati=
ents
who developed complications (n =3D 8,288), such as infection, pneumonia, =
acute
respiratory distress syndrome, acute renal failure, or myocardial
infarction, were more likely to have been managed with a PAC (
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#tbl1> Table 1).

PAC use was associated with increased mortality in all subgroups of ISS, =
ED
base deficit, and age (
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#t0661106102> Table 2). How=
ever,
as age, base deficit, and ISS increased, the risk of death associated wit=
h
PAC use decreased, and an apparent benefit of PAC use emerged ( <http://w=
ww.
mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&source=3DMI&sp=3D=
16240415
&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#t0661106102> Table 2). As shown in
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#t0661106103> Table 3, seve=
rely
injured patients (ISS =A1=DD 25) with a large base deficit (less than or =
equal
to -11) had a reduction in mortality if they were managed with a PAC. The=

reduction in mortality associated with PAC use for severely injured patie=
nts
in shock persisted across all age groups, although this effect did not re=
ach
significance for the age group of 41=A8C60 yrs. In addition, PAC use in o=
lder
patients was associated with improved survival, even if the base deficit =
was
only moderately abnormal (
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#f06611061001> Fig. 1,
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#t0661106104> Table 4). In
contrast, less severely injured trauma patients (ISS, 16=A8C24) and sever=
ely
injured patients without a high admission base deficit (more than -5) hav=
e
an increased mortality if they undergo PAC placement, regardless of age (=

<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#f06611061002> Fig. 2,
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#t0661106105> Table 5).

Table 2   --  Patient mortality by Injury Severity Score, base deficit, a=
nd
age

 	  	 Mortality With PAC,% (n =3D 1,933)	 Mortality Without
PAC,% (n =3D 51,379)	 Odds Ratio	 95% Confidence Interval=09
Mortality by Injury Severity Score=09
 	 1=A8C8 (n =3D 13,111)	 17.3	 1.0	 19.4	 9.64=A8C39.0=09
 	 9=A8C15 (n =3D 15,997)	 21.1	 2.8	 8.46	 6.27=A8C11.4=09
 	 16=A8C24 (n =3D 10,809)	 19.9	 7.9	 2.71	 2.17=A8C3.38=09
 	 25=A8C75 (n =3D 13,395)	 35.6	 30.0	 1.25	 1.12=A8C1.41=09
Mortality by initial base deficit=09
 	 =A1=DD0 (n =3D 18,157)	 29.4	 6.0	 6.10	 4.86=A8C7.66=09
 	 -1 to -5 (n =3D 23,924)	 27.3	 6.5	 4.88	 4.20=A8C5.68=09
 	 -6 to -10 (n =3D 7,682)	 27.1	 15.8	 1.87	 1.56=A8C2.24=09
 	 -11 or less (n =3D 3,549)	 40.9	 42.0	 0.96	 0.77=A8C
1.19=09
Mortality by age, yrs=09
 	 16=A8C40 (n =3D 31,431)	 26.3	 7.8	 3.94	 3.42=A8C4.54=09
 	 41=A8C60 (n =3D 13,441)	 29.3	 9.6	 3.60	 2.97=A8C4.36=09
 	 61=A8C90 (n =3D 8,440)	 35.5	 18.2	 2.29	 1.95=A8C2.70=09

PAC, pulmonary artery catheter.

Table 3   --  Subgroup analysis

Stratification	 Mortality With PAC,% (n)	 Mortality Without PAC,%
(n)	 Odds Ratio	 95% Confidence Interval=09
Decreased mortality with PAC=09
 	 Age, 16=A8C40=09
 	  	 BD, -11 or less	 42.2	 56.7	 0.60	 0.43=A8C
0.83=09
 	  	 ISS, 25=A8C75	 (132)	 (1,093)	  	  =09
 	 Age, 41=A8C60=09
 	  	 BD, -11 or less	 54.1	 59.4	 0.82	 0.44=A8C
1.52=09
 	  	 ISS, 25=A8C75	 (37)	 (438)	  	  =09
 	 Age, 61=A8C90=09
 	  	 BD, -11 or less	 56.7	 83.5	 0.33	 0.17=A8C
0.62=09
 	  	 ISS, 25=A8C75	 (30)	 (206)	  	  =09
 	 Age, 61=A8C90=09
 	  	 BD, -6 to -10	 39.7	 53.7	 0.63	 0.40=A8C0.98=09
 	  	 ISS, 25=A8C75	 (68)	 (309)	  	  =09
Increased mortality with PAC=09
 	 Age, 16=A8C40=09
 	  	 BD, -1 to -5	 15.2	 2.6	 5.98	 3.16=A8C11.3=09
 	  	 ISS, 16=A8C24	 (66)	 (2,968)	  	  =09
 	 Age, 16=A8C40=09
 	  	 BD, -1 to -5	 28.1	 16.6	 1.85	 1.41=A8C2.42=09
 	  	 ISS, 25=A8C75	 (235)	 (2,999)	  	  =09
 	 Age, 16=A8C40=09
 	  	 BD, 0 or BE	 31.1	 19.6	 1.79	 1.11=A8C2.88=09
 	  	 ISS, 25=A8C75	 (74)	 (1,539)	  	  =09
 	 Age, 41=A8C60=09
 	  	 BD, -1 to -5	 32.5	 20.8	 1.73	 1.20=A8C2.49=09
 	  	 ISS, 25=A8C75	 (117)	 (1,218)	  	  =09
 	 Age, 61=A8C90=09
 	  	 BD, -1 to -5	 28.9	 18.2	 1.71	 1.07=A8C2.71=09
 	  	 ISS, 16=A8C24	 (76)	 (692)	  	  =09

PAC, pulmonary artery catheter; BD, base deficit; ISS, Injury Severity
Score; BE, base excess.

=20
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/If06611061001.fig#top>  Figure 1
Decreased mortality with pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use. *p < .05.=20=

Table 4   --  Subgroups demonstrating improved survival with pulmonary
artery catheter use after injury

Group	 Age, yrs	 Base Deficit	 Injury Severity Score	 p
Value=09
1	 16=A8C40	 Worse than -11	 25=A8C75	 <.002=09
2	 41=A8C60	 -11	 25=A8C75	 .53=09
3	 61=A8C90	 -11	 25=A8C75	 <.001=09
4	 61=A8C90	 -6 to -10	 25=A8C75	 .036=09

=20
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/If06611061002.fig#top>  Figure 2
Increased mortality with pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use. *p < .05.=20=

Table 5   --  Subgroups demonstrating decreased survival with pulmonary
artery catheter use after injury

Group	 Age, yrs	 Base Deficit	 Injury Severity Score	 p
Value=09
5	 16=A8C40	 -1 to -5	 16=A8C24	 <.001=09
6	 16=A8C40	 -1 to -5	 25=A8C75	 <.001=09
7	 16=A8C40	 0 or base excess	 25=A8C75	 .0016=09
8	 41=A8C60	 -1 to -5	 25=A8C75	 .003=09
9	 61=A8C90	 -1 to -5	 16=A8C24	 .024=09

Logistic regression analysis identified the following factors as independ=
ent
predictors of mortality after injury: age, ED base deficit, ISS, use of a=

PAC, penetrating mechanism, head injury, and chest injury (
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#tbl6> Table 6). Hosmer and=

Lemeshow goodness of fit for this model was 0.47. Odds ratio for PAC use
demonstrated an increase in the risk of death after injury (1.294; 95%
confidence interval, 1.059=A8C1.580). However, when the model was applied=
 to
severely injured patients, a benefit to PAC use was uncovered (odds ratio=
,
0.593; 95% confidence interval, 0.437=A8C0.805) (
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#tbl6> Table 6).

Table 6   --  Logistic regression analysis

 	  	 Odds Ratio for Mortality	 95% Confidence
Intervals=09
Parameter: stepwise analysis (n =3D 53,312)=09
 	 PAC used	 1.294	 1.059=A8C1.580=09
 	 Age	 1.026	 1.024=A8C1.028=09
 	 ED base deficit	 0.949	 0.942=A8C0.955=09
 	 ISS	 1.059	 1.056=A8C1.063=09
 	 Penetrating injury	 1.474	 1.213=A8C1.792=09
 	 Head injury	 1.418	 1.213=A8C1.656=09
 	 Chest injury	 0.642	 0.551=A8C0.748=09
 	 Abdominal injury	 0.971	 0.831=A8C1.135=09
 	 Co-morbidity present	 1.408	 0.891=A8C2.226=09
Patient group: effect of PAC use by injury severity
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#tbl6fn1> [a]=09
 	 Severe injury characteristics present (n =3D 2,313)	 0.593=09
0.437=A8C0.805=09
 	 Severe injury characteristics absent (n =3D 50,999)	 1.885=09
1.478=A8C2.404=09

PAC, pulmonary artery catheter; ED, emergency department; ISS, Injury
Severity Score.

a    	Severe injury characteristics: ISS of 25=A8C75, base deficit less t=
han
-11, or age of 61=A8C90 yrs.=09

DISCUSSION=20

This study found that the use of a PAC in the management of critically
injured patients presenting to the ED in severe shock is associated with =
a
survival benefit. Conversely, those who are initially stable at arrival, =
as
defined by normal base deficit, have increased mortality when a PAC is
required during their hospital course.

One potential explanation for these findings is that severely injured
patients who arrive in shock undergo early PAC insertion to guide
resuscitation. Conversely, patients who arrive without evidence of shock =
do
not have an immediate indication for PAC use and are more likely to under=
go
insertion later in their hospital course. This latter group most likely
undergoes late PAC placement due to the development of complications from=

their injuries, such as sepsis or organ failure, and are a different grou=
p
of patients than those undergoing PAC placement acutely due to the presen=
ce
of severe shock at arrival to the ED.

Although PAC use was associated with an increase in mortality overall, it=

was associated with a protective effect in patients with severe shock,
regardless of age, and in older patients with moderate shock. We also fou=
nd
that the highest risk of death associated with PAC use was in younger
patients who arrived at the ED without a significant base deficit. Moreov=
er,
no survival benefit was detected with PAC use in patients arriving at the=
 ED
without evidence of shock. Overall, these findings support the hypothesis=

that PAC use in trauma patients with the presence of severe shock at the
time of admission provides a survival benefit.

Our results are similar to those reported by Chittock et al. (
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061015> [15]) in an
observational study of >7,000 critically ill patients in which the highes=
t
risk of death associated with PAC use occurred in those with the lowest
Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores, but a
survival benefit was associated with PAC use when APACHE II scores were v=
ery
high. Our results contrast with those of Connors et al. (
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061001> [1]), who re=
ported
an increase in 30-day mortality for critically ill patients managed with =
a
PAC. In the latter study, a propensity score was developed to determine t=
he
likelihood of PAC placement. Patients managed with a PAC were compared wi=
th
a control group of patients with similar propensity scores who did not
undergo PAC insertion. However, the propensity score has never been
validated as a predictor of PAC use. Moreover, this study did not stratif=
y
patients by severity of illness, as did our study and the study reported =
by
Chittock et al (
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061015> [15]).

In addition, we found that patients with preexisting cardiac disease and
those patients developing complications after injury (
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#tbl1> Table 1) were more l=
ikely
to be managed with a PAC. The more frequent use of a PAC in patients with=

underlying co-morbidities or complications may account for the increase i=
n
overall mortality in patients managed with a PAC after admission for inju=
ry.

Another potential reason why the PAC has been associated with higher
mortality is that most previous studies were conducted in hospitals with
open intensive care units, where any physician on the medical staff could=

admit a patient to the unit and place a PAC. Most trauma surgeons caring =
for
critically injured patients are experts in intensive care management and
have added qualifications in surgical critical care. Lack of knowledge ab=
out
appropriate PAC use and misinterpretation of PAC data may offset any
potential benefit associated with PAC use (
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061016>  [16] ,
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/article/body/86122664-5/jorg=3Djournal&sour=
ce=3DMI
&sp=3D16240415&sid=3D664762510/N/535610/1.html#r06611061017> [17] ).

The findings of our study must be interpreted within the context of its
limitations. The first limitation is that although the National Trauma Da=
ta
Bank contained >450,000 patients at the time of this analysis, only 53,00=
0
patients met inclusion criteria. Most were excluded due to missing data
points. Those patients surviving for <48 hrs were excluded to eliminate
patients with nonsurvivable injuries. This raises the possibility of
survivor bias. In addition, although this analysis contained >50,000
patients, its retrospective design and subgroup analysis is not best suit=
ed
for hypothesis testing and is more appropriate for the generation of new
hypotheses. Lastly, neither the timing of PAC placement nor cause of deat=
h
could be ascertained with certainty by analysis of the National Trauma Da=
ta
Bank. Therefore, we cannot be certain that patients with signs of severe
shock and high injury severity had better survival with a PAC as a result=
 of
early insertion.

Despite these limitations, we believe the findings of this study have
important implications for trauma care. Unlike general medical patients w=
ho
typically undergo PAC insertion to manage complications, injured patients=

may derive benefit from PAC-guided resuscitation to avert complications
related to persistent perfusion deficits. This analysis is consistent wit=
h
this hypothesis and suggests that guidelines and consensus documents that=

question the utility of the PAC may not apply to critically injured
patients.

CONCLUSIONS=20

In summary, mortality was greater in trauma patients managed with a PAC.
However, when other factors that may influence injury severity were
considered, such as age, severity of shock, and anatomic injury scoring, =
PAC
use was associated with a decrease in mortality. The results of our study=

suggest that PAC insertion is associated with improved outcome in critica=
lly
injured patients with severe shock at admission and in elderly patients w=
ith
moderate shock. A prospective randomized, controlled trial of immediate P=
AC
insertion to guide fluid resuscitation in severely injured or elderly tra=
uma
patients requiring intensive care unit admission is needed to confirm the=
se
findings.

  _____ =20

REFERENCES:

1  Connors , Jr , JrAF, Speroff T, Dawson NV, et al:  The effectiveness o=
f
right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patient=
s.
JAMA 276. 889-897.1996;
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/journal/view/N/865850?PAGE=3D1.html&source=3D=
MI&AN
CHOR=3Dabs> Abstract=20
2  Sandham JD, Hull RD, Brant RF, et al:  A randomized, controlled trial =
of
the use of pulmonary-artery catheters in high-risk surgical patients.   N=

Engl J Med 348. 5-14.2003;
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/journal/view/N/12709316?PAGE=3D1.html&sourc=
e=3DMI&
ANCHOR=3Dabs> Abstract=20
3  Rhodes A, Cusack RJ, Newman PJ, et al:  A randomized, controlled trial=
 of
the pulmonary artery catheter in critically ill patients.   Intensive Car=
e
Med 28. 256-264.2002;
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/journal/view/N/12363808?PAGE=3D1.html&sourc=
e=3DMI&
ANCHOR=3Dabs> Abstract=20
4  Richard C, Warszawski J, Anguel N, et al:  Early use of the pulmonary
artery catheter and outcomes in patients with shock and acute respiratory=

distress syndrome: A randomized controlled trial. French Pulmonary Artery=

Catheter Study Group.   JAMA 290. 2713-2720.2003;
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/journal/view/N/14212738?PAGE=3D1.html&sourc=
e=3DMI&
ANCHOR=3Dabs> Abstract=20
5  Yu DT, Platt R, Lanken PN, et al:  Relationship of pulmonary artery
catheter use to mortality and resource utilization in patients with sever=
e
sepsis.  Crit Care Med 31. 2734-2741.2003;
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/journal/view/N/14206741?ja=3D393088&PAGE=3D=
1.html&
source=3DMI> Full Text=20
6  Barone JE, Tucker JB, Rassias D, et al:  Routine perioperative pulmona=
ry
artery catheterization has no effect on rate of complications in vascular=

surgery: A meta-analysis.   Am Surg 67. 674-679.2001;
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/journal/view/N/11918762?PAGE=3D1.html&sourc=
e=3DMI&
ANCHOR=3Dabs> Abstract=20
7  Polanczyk CA, Rohde LE, Goldman L, et al:  Right heart catheterization=

and cardiac complications in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: An
observational study.  JAMA 286. 309-314.2001;
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/journal/view/N/11929660?PAGE=3D1.html&sourc=
e=3DMI&
ANCHOR=3Dabs> Abstract=20
8  Velmahos GC, Demetriades D, Shoemaker WC, et al:  Endpoints of
resuscitation of critically injured patients: Normal or supranormal? A
prospective randomized trial.  Ann Surg 232. 409-418.2000;
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/journal/view/N/11491128?PAGE=3D1.html&sourc=
e=3DMI&
ANCHOR=3Dabs> Abstract=20
9  Bishop MH, Shoemaker WC, Appel PL, et al:  Prospective, randomized tri=
al
of survivor values of cardiac index, oxygen delivery, and oxygen consumpt=
ion
as resuscitation endpoints in severe trauma.   J Trauma 38. 780-787.1995;=

<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/journal/view/N/391994?PAGE=3D1.html&source=3D=
MI&AN
CHOR=3Dabs> Abstract=20
10  Baker SP, O'Neill B, Haddon , Jr , JrW, et al:  The injury severity
score: A method for describing patients with multiple injuries and
evaluating emergency care.   J Trauma 14. 187-196.1974;
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/journal/view/N/4023267?PAGE=3D1.html&source=
=3DMI>
Citation=20
11  Baker SP, O'Neill B:  The injury severity score: An update.   J Traum=
a
16. 882-885.1976;
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/journal/view/N/4923199?PAGE=3D1.html&source=
=3DMI>
Citation=20
12  Davis JW, Shackford SR, Mackersie RC, et al:  Base deficit as a guide=
 to
volume resuscitation.   J Trauma 28. 1464-1467.1988;
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/journal/view/N/13175495?PAGE=3D1.html&sourc=
e=3DMI&
ANCHOR=3Dabs> Abstract=20
13  Davis JW, Parks SN, Kaups KL, et al:  Admission base deficit predicts=

transfusion requirements and risk of complications.   J Trauma 41.
769-774.1996;   <http://www.mdconsult.com/das/journal/view/N/1004879?PAGE=
=3D1.
html&source=3DMI&ANCHOR=3Dabs> Abstract=20
14  Greenspan L, McLellan BA, Greig H:  Abbreviated Injury Scale and Inju=
ry
Severity Score: A scoring chart.   J Trauma 25. 60-64.1985;
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/journal/view/N/7363238?PAGE=3D1.html&source=
=3DMI&A
NCHOR=3Dabs> Abstract=20
15  Chittock DR, Dhingra VK, Ronco JJ, et al:  Severity of illness and ri=
sk
of death associated with pulmonary artery catheter use.   Crit Care Med 3=
2.
911-915.2004;
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/journal/view/N/14604239?ja=3D410451&PAGE=3D=
1.html&
source=3DMI> Full Text=20
16  Iberti TJ, Fischer EP, Leibowitz AB, et al:  A multicenter study of
physicians' knowledge of the pulmonary artery catheter: Pulmonary Artery
Catheter Study Group.  JAMA 264. 2928-2932.1990;
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/journal/view/N/1356052?PAGE=3D1.html&source=
=3DMI&A
NCHOR=3Dabs> Abstract=20
17  Reynolds HN, Haupt MT, Thill-Baharozian MC, et al:  Impact of critica=
l
care physician staffing on patients with septic shock in a university
hospital medical intensive care unit.   JAMA 260. 3446-3450.1988;
<http://www.mdconsult.com/das/journal/view/N/8190866?PAGE=3D1.html&source=
=3DMI&A
NCHOR=3Dabs> Abstract=20

=20
Ivan Hronek MD=20

SFMC, Los Angeles

cell: 310 487-3288

ivanhronek at yahoo.com

Email me to join Anesthideas email discussion group.

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Anesthideas/

Confidentiality Notice: This transmission and any attached documents may =
be
confidential and contain information protected by State and Federal Medic=
al
Privacy statutes and is legally privileged. They are intended for use onl=
y
by the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient of this
transmission, or an agent of the intended recipient, you are prohibited f=
rom
reading, disclosing, printing, saving, copying, using, or otherwise
disseminating any information contained in this transmission. If you
received this transmission in error, please accept our apologies and noti=
fy
me at   <mailto:ivanhronek at yahoo.com> ivanhronek at yahoo.com and delete the=

entire message and its attachments. Thank you. Disclaimer: this message
contains the personal views of the author. The author will not be
responsible in any way for procedures or approaches perfomed in the way
suggested in this note.=20

=20

  _____ =20

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=3D51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=3DAhu0=
6i62sR8
HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ> it now.
--
trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://www.trauma.org/index.php?/community/

This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and /=
 or privileged information and is intended for the exclusive use of the a=
ddressee(s) printed above. If you are not the addressee(s), any unauthori=
sed review, disclosure, reproduction, other dissemination or use of this =
e-mail, or taking of any action in reliance upon the information containe=
d herein, is strictly prohibited. If this e-mail has been sent to you in =
error, please return to the sender. No guarantee can be given that the co=
ntents of this email are virus free - The University Hospitals of Leicest=
er NHS Trust cannot be held responsible for any failure by the recipient(=
s) to test for viruses before opening any attachments. The information co=
ntained in this e-mail may be the subject of public disclosure under the =
Freedom of Information Act 2000 - unless legally exempt from disclosure, =
the confidentiality of this e-mail and your reply cannot be guaranteed. C=
opyright in this email and any attachments created by us remains vested i=
n the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust.=20

List Archives

For your convenience, find the Trauma List Archive Below

[ccm-l] PA catheters in trauma.