↓ Skip to main content

Obituary: pulmonary artery catheter 1970 to 2013

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 874)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
125 tweeters
facebook
11 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
Title
Obituary: pulmonary artery catheter 1970 to 2013
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, November 2013
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-3-38
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul E Marik, Marik PE

Abstract

The birth of the intermittent injectate-based conventional pulmonary artery catheter (fondly nicknamed PAC) was proudly announced in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1970 by his parents HJ Swan and William Ganz. PAC grew rapidly, reaching manhood in 1986 where, in the US, he was shown to influence the management of over 40% of all ICU patients. His reputation, however, was tarnished in 1996 when Connors and colleagues suggested that he harmed patients. This was followed by randomized controlled trials demonstrating he was of little use. Furthermore, reports surfaced suggesting that he was unreliable and inaccurate. It also became clear that he was poorly understood and misinterpreted. Pretty soon after that, a posse of rivals (bedside echocardiography, pulse contour technology) moved into the neighborhood and claimed they could assess cardiac output more easily, less invasively and no less reliably. To make matter worse, dynamic assessment of fluid responsiveness (pulse pressure variation, stroke volume variation and leg raising) made a mockery of his 'wedge' pressure. While a handful of die-hard followers continued to promote his mission, the last few years of his existence were spent as a castaway until his death in 2013. His cousin (the continuous cardiac output PAC) continues to eke a living mostly in cardiac surgery patients who need central access anyway. This paper reviews the rise and fall of the conventional PAC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 125 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 157 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 23 14%
Student > Postgraduate 23 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 13%
Researcher 21 13%
Student > Master 19 11%
Other 43 26%
Unknown 15 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 123 74%
Engineering 7 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 20 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 116. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 December 2019.
All research outputs
#229,697
of 18,908,606 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#18
of 874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,710
of 283,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,908,606 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 874 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.