Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 204

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Pulmonary artery catheterization in critically ill patients: A prospective analysis of outcome changes associated with catheter-prompted changes in therapy

MIMOZ, OLIVIER, RAUSS, ALAIN, REKIK, NOURREDINE, BRUN-BUISSON, CHRISTIAN, LEMAIRE, FRANÇOIS, BROCHARD, LAURENT·1994·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate physician accuracy in predicting patients' hemodynamic profiles, associated morbidities, rates of change in therapy resulting from catheterization, and the outcome variations associated with such change before the insertion of a pulmonary artery catheter. DESIGN: Prospective, descriptive, cohort study with no interventions. SETTING: Medical intensive care unit (ICU) of a university hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred twelve catheterizations performed in 112 patients without acute myocardial infarction. In 43 cases, catheterizations were indicated because of circulatory shock that was unresponsive to two standard therapeutic measures. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Before catheterization, physicians were asked to predict the hemodynamic profile of the patients who were to be catheterized, and to provide a plan for therapy. After catheterization, each patient's chart was reviewed and compared with precatheterization predictions. Hemodynamic profiles were correctly predicted in only 56% of the cases. Information obtained from pulmonary artery catheters prompted changes in therapy in 58% of all cases and in 63% of patients in shock who were unresponsive to standard therapy. Modifications varied among hemodynamic profiles, from 33% (fluid overloaded) to 87% (hypovolemia). Complications occurred in 11 catheterizations, but only two complications required therapy (pneumothorax [n = 1] and one episode of arrhythmia). No systemic infection occurred, and all blood cultures sampled through catheters before the catheters were withdrawn were sterile. In the entire group of patients, those patients in whom catheterization induced a change in therapy and those patients in whom no change in therapy occurred had similar precatheterization characteristics and mortality rates. However, in the subgroup of patients in shock that was unresponsive to standard therapy, the mortality rate was significantly lower when the assessment of hemodynamic data led to a change in therapy (59% vs. 100%, p = .009), despite identical precatheterization characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Prompted by assessment of pulmonary artery catheter measurements in patients with circulatory shock who were unresponsive to standard therapeutic measures, a change in therapy for these patients was associated with an improved prognosis, independent of other variables influencing outcome.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00003246-199404000-00011

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Metadata

Authors
MIMOZ, O., RAUSS, A., REKIK, N., BRUN-BUISSON, C., LEMAIRE, F., & BROCHARD, L.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
1994-04
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
573-579
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2010295684
Cited by
204
References
0
FWCI
10.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pulmonary artery catheterization in critically ill patients: A prospective analysis of outcome changes associated with catheter-prompted changes in therapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00003246-199404000-00011
The paper
MIMOZ, O., RAUSS, A., REKIK, N., BRUN-BUISSON, C., LEMAIRE, F., & BROCHARD, L. (1994). Pulmonary artery catheterization in critically ill patients: A prospective analysis of outcome changes associated with catheter-prompted changes in therapy. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-199404000-00011

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.