Cardiothoracic & vascular anaesthesia
Pulmonary artery catheters or central venous catheters for cardiac surgery: the PUMA Pilot randomised clinical trial
Authors' conclusion
A randomised trial of pulmonary artery catheters compared with central venous catheters in low-risk cardiac surgery is feasible.
Study context
- Population
- Adults undergoing CABG, aortic valve replacement or aortic root/ascending aorta surgery with predicted surgical mortality < 2%, 3 tertiary cardiac surgery centresrandomised
- Participants
- 149 adults
- Comparison
- Pulmonary artery catheter vs Central venous catheter
- Pulmonary artery cathetern = 76
- Central venous cathetern = 73reference
- Primary endpoint
- Protocol compliance (receiving the assigned intervention without crossover)
Methodological detailsmulticentre, parallel assignment, open-label, pilot and feasibility
- Multicentre
- Parallel assignment
- Open-label
- Pilot and feasibility
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Protocol compliance
Received the allocated intervention
147
99%
Further findings
Days alive and at home · 30 days
Eligibility rate
- Eligible of 480 screened
- 206 (43%)
Recruitment proportion
- Approached patients providing informed consent
- 150/203 (74%)
Clinician refusal
- Eligible patients not included due to clinician refusal
- Three of 206 (1%)
Data completeness
- Patients with complete data
- 144 (97%)
Safety
AKI
Original publication
Pulmonary artery catheters or central venous catheters for cardiac surgery: the PUMA Pilot randomised clinical trial. Anaesthesia. Published 28 June 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →