• Brett Cronin, Nikolai Kolotiniuk, Kevin Youssefzadeh, Beverly Newhouse, Ulrich Schmidt, E Orestes O'Brien, and Timothy Maus.
• Department of Anesthesiology, University of California, San Diego, UCSD Medical Center - Thornton Hospital, La Jolla, CA. Electronic address: bcronin@ucsd.edu.
• J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 2018 Dec 1; 32 (6): 2578-2582.

ObjectiveTo compare pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) placement by transesophageal echocardiography combined with pressure waveform transduction versus the traditional technique of pressure waveform transduction alone.DesignA prospective, randomized trial.SettingSingle university hospital.ParticipantsForty-eight patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) scheduled for pulmonary thromboendarterectomy.InterventionsPACs were placed in 48 patients with CTEPH scheduled for pulmonary thromboendarterectomy by either a combined approach (eg, transesophageal echocardiography [TEE] and pressure waveform transduction) or by pressure waveform transduction alone.Measurements And Main ResultsSuccessful placement of the PAC via a combined technique or pressure waveform transduction alone was timed, number of attempts recorded, and final location noted. The final location of the pressure waveform-guided catheters was the proximal right pulmonary artery in 6 of 24 cases (25%), whereas the combined method resulted in successful placement in the proximal right pulmonary artery in 24 of 24 cases (100%). The pressure waveform technique resulted in a mean time to placement and mean number of attempts of 74 seconds and 1.70 attempts, respectively. The combined approach resulted in a mean time to placement and mean number of attempts of 89 seconds and 1.79 attempts, respectively. The combined method resulted in placement in the proximal right pulmonary artery significantly more often than the pressure-only method but did not reduce significantly the number of attempts or time required to place the catheter successfully. Additionally, among those cases that required more than 1 attempt or manipulation, there was no difference in the time to successful placement or the number of attempts required for successful placement.ConclusionTEE guidance during PAC insertion was hypothesized to result in a higher success rate, precise placement, and shorter times to placement. One hundred percent of the PACs inserted with TEE guidance were positioned successfully in the proximal right pulmonary artery, which is the institutional preference. Although the combined technique resulted in greater precision, the clinical significance of this is unknown. The time to placement benefit was not confirmed by this study.Published by Elsevier Inc.

34 keywords...

hide…