[Swan Ganz catheter. Experts opinion]. / Catéter de Swan Ganz. Opinión de expertos.

Investigators have raised doubts as to the safety of the Swan Ganz catheter (SGC). In order to define the point of view of cardiologists in our country, the Argentine Society of Cardiology's Emergency Council organized a meeting to analyze their views in different settings (non-cardiac surgery, cardiac surgery, acute coronary syndromes and heart failure) using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method. A detailed review with the scientific evidence was sent to the experts in cardiology prior to the meeting in the SAC auditorium where the panellists selected the clinical variables create the specific situations. These hypothetic situations were resent to the panellists at a second stage for their individual evaluation, rating the benefit-to-harm ratio of the procedure on a scale of 1 to 9 (1 meant that the expected harms greatly outweighed the expected benefits, and 9 that the expected benefits greatly outweighed the expected harms, 5 could mean either that the harms and benefits were roughly equal). Two experts analyzed the results, describing the agreement/disagreement ratio. Finally, each indication was classified as "appropriate" "uncertain" or "inappropriate" ,for the procedure in accordance with the panelists' median score: median scores in the 1-3 range were classified as inappropriate, those in the 4-6 range as uncertain, and those in the 7-9 range as appropriate. We observed high disagreement rates in SGC indications between cardiologists. However, the panelists were in favor of SGC use when situations included shock and myocardial dysfunction, especially in the presence of organic dysfunction. There were some situations when panelists considered SGC not useful, in patients without organ failure.

Catéter de Swan Ganz: Opinión de expertos

Actualmente existen dudas sobre la seguridad del uso del catéter de Swan Ganz (CSG). Para definir la opinión de los cardiólogos de nuestro país, el Consejo de Emergencias Cardiovasculares de la Sociedad Argentina de Cardiología (SAC) realizó una reunión para evaluar la opinión de expertos en diferentes escenarios (cirugía no cardíaca, cardíaca, síndromes coronarios e insuficiencia cardíaca), usando el método RAND-UCLA appropiateness. Se envió la evidencia bibliográfica previa a la reunión en la SAC y en la misma los panelistas seleccionaron las variables para conformar las situaciones clínicas que luego fueron enviadas para que individualmente, en una segunda etapa, determinaran si consideraban beneficioso o perjudicial la utilización del catéter con una escala de 1 a 9 (1 significaba que los potenciales perjuicios superaban a los beneficios, 9 que los beneficios eran mayores y 5 que podía considerarse indistintamente beneficioso o perjudicial). Dos expertos analizaron los resultados, describiendo la tasa de acuerdo/desacuerdo. Finalmente, cada indicación se clasificó como “apropiada”, “dudosa” o inapropiada de acuerdo a la mediana definida por los panelistas: 1-3 se clasificó como inapropiado, 4-6 dudoso y 7-9 como indicación apropiada. Observamos gran discrepancia en la opinión sobre la indicación de CSG entre los expertos. Sin embargo, los panelistas estuvieron a favor de su utilización en situaciones que incluían shock y disfunción miocárdica, especialmente cuando se asoció disfunción orgánica. Hubo situaciones en las que los panelistas consideraron inapropiada la indicación del CSG, en pacientes sin disfunción orgánica.

Investigators have raised doubts as to the safety of the Swan Ganz catheter (SGC). In order to define the point of view of cardiologists in our country, the Argentine Society of Cardiology’s Emergency Council organized a meeting to analyze their views in different settings (non-cardiac surgery, cardiac surgery, acute coronary syndromes and heart failure) using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method. A detailed review with the scientific evidence was sent to the experts in cardiology prior to the meeting in the SAC auditorium where the panellists selected the clinical variables create the specific situations. These hypothetic situations were resent to the panellists at a second stage for their individual evaluation, rating the benefit-to-harm ratio of the procedure on a scale of 1 to 9 (1 meant that the expected harms greatly outweighed the expected benefits, and 9 that the expected benefits greatly outweighed the expected harms, 5 could mean either that the harms and benefits were roughly equal). Two experts analyzed the results, describing the agreement/disagreement ratio. Finally, each indication was classified as “appropriate,” “uncertain” or “inappropriate” for the procedure in accordance with the panelists’ median score: median scores in the 1-3 range were classified as inappropriate, those in the 4-6 range as uncertain, and those in the 7-9 range as appropriate. We observed high disagreement rates in SGC indications between cardiologists. However, the panelists were in favor of SGC use when situations included shock and myocardial dysfunction, especially in the presence of organic dysfunction. There were some situations when panelists considered SGC not useful, in patients without organ failure.

Catéter de Swan Ganz: Opinión de expertos

Actualmente existen dudas sobre la seguridad del uso del catéter de Swan Ganz (CSG). Para definir la opinión de los cardiólogos de nuestro país, el Consejo de Emergencias Cardiovasculares de la Sociedad Argentina de Cardiología (SAC) realizó una reunión para evaluar la opinión de expertos en diferentes escenarios (cirugía no cardíaca, cardíaca, síndromes coronarios e insuficiencia cardíaca), usando el método RAND-UCLA appropiateness. Se envió la evidencia bibliográfica previa a la reunión en la SAC y en la misma los panelistas seleccionaron las variables para conformar las situaciones clínicas que luego fueron enviadas para que individualmente, en una segunda etapa, determinaran si consideraban beneficioso o perjudicial la utilización del catéter con una escala de 1 a 9 (1 significaba que los potenciales perjuicios superaban a los beneficios, 9 que los beneficios eran mayores y 5 que podía considerarse indistintamente beneficioso o perjudicial). Dos expertos analizaron los resultados, describiendo la tasa de acuerdo/desacuerdo. Finalmente, cada indicación se clasificó como “apropiada”, “dudosa” o inapropiada de acuerdo a la mediana definida por los panelistas: 1-3 se clasificó como inapropiado, 4-6 dudoso y 7-9 como indicación apropiada. Observamos gran discrepancia en la opinión sobre la indicación de CSG entre los expertos. Sin embargo, los panelistas estuvieron a favor de su utilización en situaciones que incluían shock y disfunción miocárdica, especialmente cuando se asoció disfunción orgánica. Hubo situaciones en las que los panelistas consideraron inapropiada la indicación del CSG, en pacientes sin disfunción orgánica.(AU)

Investigators have raised doubts as to the safety of the Swan Ganz catheter (SGC). In order to define the point of view of cardiologists in our country, the Argentine Society of Cardiology’s Emergency Council organized a meeting to analyze their views in different settings (non-cardiac surgery, cardiac surgery, acute coronary syndromes and heart failure) using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method. A detailed review with the scientific evidence was sent to the experts in cardiology prior to the meeting in the SAC auditorium where the panellists selected the clinical variables create the specific situations. These hypothetic situations were resent to the panellists at a second stage for their individual evaluation, rating the benefit-to-harm ratio of the procedure on a scale of 1 to 9 (1 meant that the expected harms greatly outweighed the expected benefits, and 9 that the expected benefits greatly outweighed the expected harms, 5 could mean either that the harms and benefits were roughly equal). Two experts analyzed the results, describing the agreement/disagreement ratio. Finally, each indication was classified as “appropriate,” “uncertain” or “inappropriate” for the procedure in accordance with the panelists’ median score: median scores in the 1-3 range were classified as inappropriate, those in the 4-6 range as uncertain, and those in the 7-9 range as appropriate. We observed high disagreement rates in SGC indications between cardiologists. However, the panelists were in favor of SGC use when situations included shock and myocardial dysfunction, especially in the presence of organic dysfunction. There were some situations when panelists considered SGC not useful, in patients without organ failure.(AU)

Catéter de Swan Ganz. Opinión de expertos. / [Swan Ganz catheter. Experts opinion].

Investigators have raised doubts as to the safety of the Swan Ganz catheter (SGC). In order to define the point of view of cardiologists in our country, the Argentine Society of Cardiologys Emergency Council organized a meeting to analyze their views in different settings (non-cardiac surgery, cardiac surgery, acute coronary syndromes and heart failure) using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method. A detailed review with the scientific evidence was sent to the experts in cardiology prior to the meeting in the SAC auditorium where the panellists selected the clinical variables create the specific situations. These hypothetic situations were resent to the panellists at a second stage for their individual evaluation, rating the benefit-to-harm ratio of the procedure on a scale of 1 to 9 (1 meant that the expected harms greatly outweighed the expected benefits, and 9 that the expected benefits greatly outweighed the expected harms, 5 could mean either that the harms and benefits were roughly equal). Two experts analyzed the results, describing the agreement/disagreement ratio. Finally, each indication was classified as "appropriate" "uncertain" or "inappropriate" ,for the procedure in accordance with the panelists median score: median scores in the 1-3 range were classified as inappropriate, those in the 4-6 range as uncertain, and those in the 7-9 range as appropriate. We observed high disagreement rates in SGC indications between cardiologists. However, the panelists were in favor of SGC use when situations included shock and myocardial dysfunction, especially in the presence of organic dysfunction. There were some situations when panelists considered SGC not useful, in patients without organ failure.

[Contrast induced nephropathy in acute coronary syndrome]. / Nefropatía por contraste en el síndrome coronario agudo.

Contrast induced nephropathy (CIN) is one of the most frequent causes of acute renal failure in hospitalized patients. It is associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality in patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Risk factors and prevention strategies are not well defined. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and clinical risk factors associated to the development of contrast induced nephropathy in patients hospitalized for ACS. In a retrospective cohort we analyzed consecutive patients hospitalized for ACS undergoing urgent PCI within 72 hours from the admission. CIN was defined as a 25% increase of creatinine levels from baseline at 48 hours from the PCI. The inclusion period was from January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2010. A total of 125 patients were analyzed, and CIN occurred in 13 (10.4%) patients. An independent association was found between age (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.004 to 1.11; p = 0.034), multiple vessel angioplasty (OR 2.2; 95% IC 1.07 to 4.8; p = 0.03) and the volume of contrast infused (OR 1.007; 95% CI 1.001 to 1.01; p = 0.014) with the development of CIN.

Nefropatía por contraste en el síndrome coronario agudo / Contrast induced nephropathy in acute coronary syndrome

La nefropatía inducida por contraste (NIC) es una de las causas más frecuentes de insuficiencia renal en pacientes internados. En el síndrome coronario agudo (SCA), la presencia de NIC aumenta la morbimortalidad. Las medidas de profilaxis y los factores de riesgo intervinientes de NIC en SCA no han sido determinados con exactitud. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la incidencia de NIC y los factores asociados a su desarrollo en pacientes ingresados en unidad coronaria con requerimiento de cinecoronariografía (CCG). Se realizó un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. Se incluyeron pacientes consecutivos cursando SCA estudiados con CCG dentro de las 72 horas de su admisión. Se definió NIC al aumento del 25% del valor de creatinina a las 48 h sobre el nivel basal de ingreso. El período de inclusión fue entre el 1° de enero de 2004 hasta el 30 de junio de 2010. Se analizaron 125 casos. La incidencia de NIC fue del 10.4% (n = 13). En el análisis multivariado, los factores asociados independientemente a su desarrollo fueron la edad [OR 1.05 (IC 95% 1.004 - 1.11) p = 0.034], la angioplastia a múltiple vaso [OR 2.2 (IC 95% 1.07 - 4.8), p = 0.03] y el volumen de contraste utilizado [OR 1.007 (IC 95% 1.001 - 1.01), p = 0.014].

Contrast induced nephropathy (CIN) is one of the most frequent causes of acute renal failure in hospitalized patients. It is associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality in patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Risk factors and prevention strategies are not well defined. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and clinical risk factors associated to the development of contrast induced nephropathy in patients hospitalized for ACS. In a retrospective cohort we analyzed consecutive patients hospitalized for ACS undergoing urgent PCI within 72 hours from the admission. CIN was defined as a 25% increase of creatinine levels from baseline at 48 hours from the PCI. The inclusion period was from January 1°, 2004 to June 30, 2010. A total of 125 patients were analyzed, and CIN occurred in 13 (10.4%) patients. An independent association was found between age (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.004 to 1.11; p = 0.034), multiple vessel angioplasty (OR 2.2; 95% IC 1.07 to 4.8; p = 0.03) and the volume of contrast infused (OR 1.007; 95% CI 1.001 to 1.01; p = 0.014) with the development of CIN.