Literature and new innovations leading to the rise and fall of the Swan-Ganz catheter

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Yun-Yun K. Chen , Sukumar P. Desai , John A. Fox
{"title":"Literature and new innovations leading to the rise and fall of the Swan-Ganz catheter","authors":"Yun-Yun K. Chen ,&nbsp;Sukumar P. Desai ,&nbsp;John A. Fox","doi":"10.1016/j.janh.2020.12.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>In 1970, Harold James Charles Swan and William Ganz published their work on the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC or Swan-Ganz catheter). They described the successful bedside use of a flow-directed catheter to continuously evaluate the heart, and it was used extensively in the years following to care for critically ill patients. In recent decades, clinicians have reevaluated the risks and benefits of the PAC.</p></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><p>We acknowledge the contributions of Swan and Ganz and discuss literature, including randomized controlled trials, and new technology surrounding the rise and fall in use of the PAC.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We performed a literature search of retrospective and prospective studies, including randomized controlled trials, and editorials to understand the history and clinical outcomes of the PAC.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In the 1980s, clinicians began to question the benefits of the PAC. In 1996 and 2003, a large observational study and randomized controlled trial, respectively, showed no clear benefits in outcome. Thereafter, use of PACs began to drop precipitously. New less and noninvasive technology can estimate cardiac output and blood pressure continuously.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Swan and Ganz contributed to the bedside understanding of the pathophysiology of the heart. The history of the rise and fall in use of the PAC parallels the literature and invention of less-invasive technology. Although the PAC has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes in large randomized controlled trials, it may still be useful in select patients. New less-invasive and noninvasive technology may ultimately replace it if literature supports it.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia History","volume":"6 4","pages":"Pages 21-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352452920300372","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background

In 1970, Harold James Charles Swan and William Ganz published their work on the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC or Swan-Ganz catheter). They described the successful bedside use of a flow-directed catheter to continuously evaluate the heart, and it was used extensively in the years following to care for critically ill patients. In recent decades, clinicians have reevaluated the risks and benefits of the PAC.

Aim

We acknowledge the contributions of Swan and Ganz and discuss literature, including randomized controlled trials, and new technology surrounding the rise and fall in use of the PAC.

Methods

We performed a literature search of retrospective and prospective studies, including randomized controlled trials, and editorials to understand the history and clinical outcomes of the PAC.

Results

In the 1980s, clinicians began to question the benefits of the PAC. In 1996 and 2003, a large observational study and randomized controlled trial, respectively, showed no clear benefits in outcome. Thereafter, use of PACs began to drop precipitously. New less and noninvasive technology can estimate cardiac output and blood pressure continuously.

Conclusions

Swan and Ganz contributed to the bedside understanding of the pathophysiology of the heart. The history of the rise and fall in use of the PAC parallels the literature and invention of less-invasive technology. Although the PAC has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes in large randomized controlled trials, it may still be useful in select patients. New less-invasive and noninvasive technology may ultimately replace it if literature supports it.

文学和新发明导致了Swan-Ganz导管的兴衰
1970年,Harold James Charles Swan和William Ganz发表了他们关于肺动脉导管(PAC或Swan-Ganz导管)的研究成果。他们描述了一种成功的床边使用的导流导管来持续评估心脏,并在随后的几年里广泛用于重症患者的护理。近几十年来,临床医生重新评估了pac的风险和益处。我们承认Swan和Ganz的贡献,并讨论了文献,包括随机对照试验,以及围绕pac使用的兴起和下降的新技术。方法我们进行了回顾性和前瞻性研究的文献检索,包括随机对照试验和社论,以了解pac的历史和临床结果。临床医生开始质疑PAC的益处。1996年和2003年,一项大型观察性研究和随机对照试验分别显示PAC在结果上没有明显的益处。此后,pac的使用开始急剧下降。新的少创无创技术可以连续测量心输出量和血压。结论swan和Ganz对临床对心脏病理生理的认识做出了贡献。PAC使用的兴衰历史与文献和非侵入性技术的发明相似。尽管在大型随机对照试验中尚未显示PAC能改善临床结果,但它可能对某些患者仍然有用。如果文献支持,新的低侵入性和非侵入性技术可能最终取代它。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Anesthesia History
Journal of Anesthesia History Arts and Humanities-History and Philosophy of Science
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Anesthesia History (ISSN 2352-4529) is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to advancing the study of anesthesia history and related disciplines. The Journal addresses anesthesia history from antiquity to the present. Its wide scope includes the history of perioperative care, pain medicine, critical care medicine, physician and nurse practices of anesthesia, equipment, drugs, and prominent individuals. The Journal serves a diverse audience of physicians, nurses, dentists, clinicians, historians, educators, researchers and academicians.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信