This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

C. William Hanson III, MD
University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia

Douglas B. Coursin, MD
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Charles G. Durbin, MD
University of Virginia Charlottesville

Michael J. Murray, MD
Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minn

JAMA. 1997;277(2):111-112.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—As the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of American Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists, the largest American subspecialty group of anesthesiologists and intensivists, we write to raise several points about the recent article by Dr Connors and colleagues on the RHC¹ and its accompanying Editorial.²

We commend Connors et al for their attempt to examine the efficacy and safety of the RHC in a large cohort of critically ill (medical) patients. Their finding that the use of the RHC "was associated with an increased risk of mortality" certainly warrants further investigation. The explanations proposed by the authors are interesting, raising the possibility that the aggressive, interventional style of management practiced in some ICUs is hazardous rather than beneficial.

An alternative explanation, that the "benefits of RHC may not be realized if the physician interpreting the output of the catheter is not knowledgeable and skilled in its . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?