Search

The gold standard for diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension is right heart catheterization. This procedure requires considerable expertise and has its own procedure related complications. If not done properly, it can lead to misinterpretations of its findings. We have highlighted the procedural technique and major pitfalls in the diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Chest radiographs (CXRs) are the most common imaging investigations undertaken because of their value in evaluating the cardiorespiratory system. They play a vital role in intensive care units for evaluating the critically ill. It is therefore very common for the radiologist to encounter tubes, lines, medical devices and materials on a daily basis. It is important for the interpreting radiologist not only to identify these iatrogenic objects, but also to look for their accurate placement as well as for any complications related to their placement, which may be seen either on the immediate post-procedural CXR or on a follow-up CXR. In this article, we discussed and illustrated the routinely encountered tubes and lines that one may see on a CXR as well as some of their complications. In addition, we also provide a brief overview of other important non-cardiac medical devices and materials that may be seen on CXRs., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (© 2019. The Authors.)

Pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) were introduced in 1970. Since then, their use has steadily increased. However, there have been questions raised regarding their efficacy for multiple clinical scenarios. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the safety and effectiveness of routine use of PACs post cardiac surgery on mortality, complications, days in intensive care unit, days in hospital, and costs in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, or patients who end up in an intensive care unit., Methods: Medline, All EBM, EMBASE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were searched using predetermined search terms. Google, British Medical Journal (BMJ) Best Practice, and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) were also searched. All searches were from 2012 to current to update a previous review from 2013. Studies were included if they involved adult cardiac surgery patients, or intensive care unit (ICU) patients requiring haemodynamic monitoring. All other surgical patients were excluded., Results: Six articles were included in this review. Of the six articles, five were randomised or observational studies, and one was an expert recommendation. For all cardiac surgery patients and patients having coronary artery bypass grafting, there was no difference in mortality. There was an increase in mortality in high-risk cardiac surgery patients, who had a PAC. For patients following coronary artery bypass grafting, there was no difference in ICU length of stay (LOS) but for patients following cardiac surgery total length of hospital stay >30days was greater in patients with a PAC. For patients following coronary artery bypass grafting, in-hospital costs for the entire hospitalisation were higher in patients with a PAC and, there was no difference in complications between PAC and a central venous catheter use. Overall, PACs were not a predictor of worse outcomes., Conclusion: This review revealed that PAC use was associated with a poorer outcome in a small subset of cardiac surgical patients but in the majority of patients PAC use made no difference to outcome. Further studies are required to confirm the true safety and efficacy of PAC use in cardiac surgery., (Copyright © 2018 Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)