Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Cardiol. Dec 26, 2021; 13(12): 720-732
Published online Dec 26, 2021. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v13.i12.720
Table 2 Current guidelines on pulmonary artery catheterization in cardiogenic shock
Guideline
Recommendation
2011 ACCF/AHA CABG[51]Invasive hemodynamic monitoring with PAC is required before induction of anesthesia in patients with CS undergoing CABG (Class 1; level of evidence C)
2013 ACCF/AHA HF[52]Invasive hemodynamic monitoring should be performed in patients with respiratory distress or impaired perfusion – when intracardiac filling pressures could not be determined from clinical assessment (Class 1; level of evidence C)
Invasive hemodynamic monitoring is also recommended for patients with persistent acute HF symptoms despite empiric HF therapy adjusts and with one of following: (1) Systemic or pulmonary vascular resistance; or fluid status or perfusion is uncertain; (2) Low systolic blood pressure despite initial therapy; (3) Worsening renal function; (4) Candidate for pressor support; and (5) Candidate for MCS or heart transplant (Class IIa; level of evidence C)
The 2013 ISHLT MCS[53] Patients undergoing procedure MCS device placement should have insertion of large-bore intra-venous line, arterial line, and pulmonary catheter for monitoring and intra-venous access (Class I; level of evidence B)
2016 ESC HF[11]Routine invasive hemodynamic evaluation is not indicated for diagnosis of HF – PAC could be used in hemodynamically unstable patients with unknown mechanism of deterioration
PAC could be used for acute HF who have refractory symptoms despite pharmacological treatment (Class IIb; level of evidence C)
PAC along with right heart catheterization is recommended for evaluation of patients for MCS or heart transplantation (Class I; level of evidence C)
2017 SCAI/HFSA Invasive Hemodynamics[54]Continuous hemodynamic monitoring is required for patients receiving MCS
Continuous hemodynamic monitoring is used for withdrawal of MCS and pharmacologic support