Impact of Pulmonary Artery Catheter on Costs and Outcomes in Acute Lung Injury
Author Information
Author(s): Gilles Clermont, Lan Kong, Lisa A. Weissfeld, Judith R. Lave, Gordon D. Rubenfeld, Mark S. Roberts, Alfred F. Connors Jr., Gordon R. Bernard, B. Taylor Thompson, Arthur P. Wheeler, Derek C. Angus
Primary Institution: University of Pittsburgh
Hypothesis
The use of the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) in acute lung injury (ALI) may have long-term economic impacts not previously evaluated.
Conclusion
The use of PAC increased costs without providing any patient benefit, suggesting it is unjustified for routine use in ALI.
Supporting Evidence
- Hospital costs were similar for the PAC and CVC groups.
- Post-discharge costs were higher for PAC subjects.
- One-year mortality and quality of life were similar in both groups.
- Monte Carlo simulation showed PAC use had a high probability of being more expensive and less effective.
Takeaway
Using a special heart monitor called a PAC for patients with lung problems costs more money but doesn't help them get better.
Methodology
The study compared healthcare costs and long-term outcomes for patients treated with PAC versus central venous catheter (CVC) through interviews and analysis of hospital bills.
Potential Biases
Potential unmeasured confounders could affect the results.
Limitations
The study may not be generalizable to settings where clinicians make individualized decisions based on hemodynamic data.
Participant Demographics
The study included 1001 patients with a mean age of 50.1 years, with 47% being female and a majority being non-Hispanic white.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p=0.03
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website