Introduction: The impact of pulmonary artery (PA) catheters on patient outcome has been questioned and their usage has become controversial. Meta-analysis on mortality has shown a trend for improved survival with PA catheter-guided therapy. We now perform a meta-analysis on morbidity from PA catheters in the published literature. Methods: We did a search of the medical database (Medline) from 1970 through 1996, using the headings "pulmonary artery catheterization," "Swan-Ganz catheterization" and "right heart catheterization," and restricting the results to "effectiveness" and "usefulness." We also consulted with other experts regarding published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This yielded 16 RCTs addressing the question of effectiveness of PA catheter-guided treatment. Of these, 12 were found to include data on morbidity. Major morbidity, defined as organ failures as per the American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference criteria, from these trials was entered into a formal meta-analysis. Results: A total of 1,610 patients from the 12 trials were analyzed. Morbidity events were observed in 62.77% of the PA catheter treatment group, and in 74.34% of the control group. A relative risk ratio of 0.78074 was obtained, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.6459-0.94374 and a correspondingpof .0168, a lower morbidity in the PA catheter treatment group. Those with PA catheter-guided treatment had a mean protective effect of 21.9% for risk of morbidity. Other important covariates such as acuity of illness, quality score of trials, year of publication, type of PA catheter-guided treatment used (PA catheter vs. no PA catheter, or PA catheter vs. PA catheter for supranormal hemodynamic values), and surgical or mixed patient population, all increased variability and were not statistically significant predictors for risk ratio of morbidity. Conclusions: Meta-analysis of RCTs included in this study shows that there is a statistically significant reduction in morbidity using PA catheter-guided strategies.

OBJECTIVE This study utilized an in vitro neonatal rat cardiac myocyte assay to evaluate potential differences in the response of TNF-alpha-exposed myocytes to stimulation with the adrenergic agent, epinephrine, and the phosphodiesterase III inhibitor, amrinone. DESIGN Contractility was assessed by measuring the maximum extent of the contraction of electrically paced neonatal rat cardiac myocytes in tissue culture using a closed-loop video tracking system. Myocytes were incubated in control or media containing TNF-alpha (50 ng/mL) for 20 mins and were then stimulated with increasing concentrations of either epinephrine (0.1 to 100 ng/mL) for 15 mins or amrinone lactate (0.25 to 10 microg/mL) for 20 mins. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Compared with control myocytes, TNF-alpha-exposed myocytes stimulated with increasing concentrations of epinephrine demonstrated a decreased peak augmentation of contractility (p<.0001 analysis of variance). This decrease was paralleled by a decrease in epinephrine-stimulated generation of cyclic AMP, as measured by enzyme-linked immunoassay (p = .05 polynomial regression). In contrast, increasing concentrations of amrinone produced increased peak augmentation of contractility (p = .003 analysis of variance) in TNF-alpha-exposed cardiac myocytes (relative to controls). However, this increase was not reflected by increased amrinone-stimulated generation of cyclic AMP relative to control myocytes not exposed to TNF-alpha (p = NS polynomial regression). CONCLUSIONS Our data suggest that TNF-alpha induces a defect in beta-adrenergic signal transduction and catecholamine-stimulated contractility in neonatal rat cardiac myocytes. In addition, TNF-alpha augments the inotropic response of myocardial tissue to phosphodiesterase inhibitors through a mechanism independent of cyclic AMP generation. Phosphodiesterase inhibitors such as amrinone may be found to exert significant inotropic effects in catecholamine-refractory septic shock with myocardial depression and other conditions of inflammatory myocardial dysfunction.

Background: The growth in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) use has been hampered by high morbidity and mortality rates and cost. The purpose of this study was to help improve patient selection for LVAD placement by determining whether the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scoring system, a multiparameter, physiology-based predictor of outcome, could be used to predict outcome after LVAD placement and thus help determine optimum timing of LVAD placement. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort observational study consisting of 2 groups: (1) 50 patients with severe heart failure who did not receive LVAD placement after initial evaluation and (2) 31 patients who did receive LVAD placement. Patients included in the study were in severe heart failure on the basis of 3 of the following: lung crackles, S-3, peripheral edema, ejection fraction < 0.30, systolic blood pressure < 80 mm Hg, progressive prerenal azotemia, altered level of consciousness, gastrointestinal ischemia or congestion, or persistent although reversible pulmonary hypertension in spite of maximal medical therapy, including intravenous inotropes. The decision for LVAD placement was at the discretion of the attending physician. Results: Both LVAD- and non-LVAD-treated patients were similar in cause of heart failure, APACHE II scores, and other baseline laboratory parameters. Survival time with a log-logistic model was better for LVAD-treated patients, p =.0266. Although Kaplan Meier analysis showed a trend toward better survival rates in the LVAD-treated patient, the Cox proportional hazards revealed that LVAD-treated patients had better survival (relative risk ratio, 95% confidence interval = 0.305, 0.110 to 0.892; p =.0219) after adjustment for APACHE II score. Each unit increase in APACHE II independently predicted death (relative risk ratios, 95% confidence interval = 1.139, 1.055 to 1.231; p =.0009). Patients with medium APACHE II (11 to 20) scores in particular benefitted from LVAD treatment. Conclusion: LVAD placement for severe heart failure (not restricted to cardiogenic shock) improves survival. APACHE II can aid in deciding the timing of LVAD placement in patients with heart failure who may not have attained conventional hemodynamic criteria for LVAD placement. Patients who had APACHE II scores between II and 20 derived the greatest benefit from LVAD placement.

BACKGROUND:The growth in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) use has been hampered by high morbidity and mortality rates and cost. The purpose of this study was to help improve patient selection for LVAD placement by determining whether the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scoring system, a multiparameter, physiology-based predictor of outcome, could be used to predict outcome after LVAD placement and thus help determine optimum timing of LVAD placement.METHODS:This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort observational study consisting of 2 groups: (1) 50 patients with severe heart failure who did not receive LVAD placement after initial evaluation and (2) 31 patients who did receive LVAD placement. Patients included in the study were in severe heart failure on the basis of 3 of the following: lung crackles, S3, peripheral edema, ejection fraction < 0.30, systolic blood pressure < 80 mm Hg, progressive prerenal azotemia, altered level of consciousness, gastrointestinal ischemia or congestion, or persistent although reversible pulmonary hypertension in spite of maximal medical therapy, including intravenous inotropes. The decision for LVAD placement was at the discretion of the attending physician.RESULTS:Both LVAD- and non-LVAD-treated patients were similar in cause of heart failure, APACHE II scores, and other baseline laboratory parameters. Survival time with a log-logistic model was better for LVAD-treated patients, p=.0266. Although Kaplan Meier analysis showed a trend toward better survival rates in the LVAD-treated patient, the Cox proportional hazards revealed that LVAD-treated patients had better survival (relative risk ratio, 95% confidence interval=0.305, 0.110 to 0.892; p=.0219) after adjustment for APACHE II score. Each unit increase in APACHE II independently predicted death (relative risk ratios, 95% confidence interval=1.139, 1.055 to 1.231; p=.0009). Patients with medium APACHE II (11 to 20) scores in particular benefitted from LVAD treatment.CONCLUSION:LVAD placement for severe heart failure (not restricted to cardiogenic shock) improves survival. APACHE II can aid in deciding the timing of LVAD placement in patients with heart failure who may not have attained conventional hemodynamic criteria for LVAD placement. Patients who had APACHE II scores between 11 and 20 derived the greatest benefit from LVAD placement.

Objectives. To assess the relation between individual operator coronary interventional volume and incidence of complications, the in-hospital outcome at a single, moderate volume urban academic center was prospectively collected over a 3-year period.Background. A minimum of 75 coronary interventions/operator per year may be required in the future to obtain formal certification. However, few data exist regarding individual operator volumes and procedural outcome.Methods. Between January 1993 and December 1995, 1,389 consecutive procedures were performed or supervised by nine geographic full-time operators: 171 (12.3%) utilized various devices, and 350 (25.2%) involved multivessel coronary intervention. Left ventricular ejection fraction was 59 +/- 15% (mean +/- SD), and there were 1.7 +/- 0.7 vessels diseased (with greater than or equal to 70% stenosis). Clinical indications included stable angina in 22.5% of cases, unstable angina in 31.9%, acute myocardial infarction (MI) in 2.9%, post MI in 20.6%, shock or acute heart failure in 3.0% and restenosis in 19.1%. In the last consecutive 857 lesions in 655 cases, 20.7% type A, 55.5% type B and 23.8% type C lesions were categorized before coronary intervention.Results. Average yearly operator volume ranged from 26 to 83 cases (mean 51 +/- 26). Each operator has performed a total of 590 +/- 268 coronary interventions, with 10.0 +/- 4.3 years of coronary interventional experience. The mean angioplasty volume rating for the nine operators,vas 180 +/- 37 (>170 considered adequate). The in hospital major complication rate was 1.4% (95% confidence interval 0.7% to 1.893%) for all coronary interventions, including death in 3 patients, bypass surgery in 13, arrhythmia in 3 and Q wave MI in 2.To ascertain how these outcomes compared with standard measures of coronary interventional outcome, four previously published registries were reanalyzed in a similar manner. The rate of complications in the present study was found to be significantly lower than that of the 1992-1993 Society for Cardiac Angiography and Intervention registry (1.9%, n = 19,594, p < 0.05 [excludes ventricular arrhythmias]), the 1994 American College of Cardiology database (3.9%, n = 38,963, p = 0.001), the Mid-America Heart Institute outcome in 1988 (2.3%, n = 5,413, p = 0.02) and the 1985-1986 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Registry (7.2%, n = 1,801, p = 0.001). Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals showed the outcome in the current study to be at least comparable to the standard registries.Conclusions. Despite individual operator volumes below those currently being considered for credentialing, the overall institutional outcome was excellent in a diverse and complex patient population. (C) 1997 by the American College of Cardiology.