Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ digital
    • Subscribe to CMAJ print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ digital
    • Subscribe to CMAJ print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
  • Listen to CMAJ podcasts
Editorials

The promise and the paradox of technology in the intensive care unit

Deborah J. Cook and William J. Sibbald
CMAJ November 02, 1999 161 (9) 1118-1119;
Deborah J. Cook
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William J. Sibbald
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Although health-related technology encompasses the drugs, devices, procedures and organizations used in health care delivery,1 in this article we focus on the devices used to care for critically ill patients. There are few settings as evocative of health technology as the intensive care unit (ICU), where technology is used to monitor physiology (e.g., the intra-arterial blood pressure catheter), to diagnose morbidity (e.g., protected specimen brush catheter) or to treat (e.g., mechanical ventilation). Some ICU technologies have combined monitoring, diagnostic and therapeutic effects (e.g., intracranial devices that transduce intracranial pressure, drain cerebrospinal fluid and record subsequent pressures). This is the promise of technology in the ICU. Herein lies the paradox: First, although the ICU is replete with technologies, and the lives of many critically ill patients are dependent upon them, few of these technologies have undergone rigorous evaluation before their dissemination. Second, when they are evaluated carefully, some technologies generally considered beneficial have the potential for harm.

The first paradox is epitomized by the pulmonary artery catheter. There is no ICU device more widely celebrated yet debated. Early trials comparing standard care with management aided by these catheters focused on understanding pathophysiology (successfully) and modifying patient outcome (unsuccessfully). Pleas for better evaluation of pulmonary artery catheters have ranged from hortatory statements pronouncing a moratorium on their use,2 to more visionary calls to investigators, funding agencies and policymakers to collaborate on research promotion and guidelines development.3 A recent observational study suggesting increased mortality among patients with pulmonary artery catheters4 prompted rejoinders from professional associations and biotechnology boardrooms, highlighting the axiom that a diagnostic tool can only improve outcome if the therapy predicated on these diagnostic test results is itself effective. Using the pulmonary artery catheter to measure filling pressures and cardiac output, thereby targeting "supraphysiologic" oxygen delivery preoperatively, has been associated with lower mortality rates in some investigations. A large multicentre study by the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group evaluating this application of the pulmonary artery catheter in high-risk surgical patients is nearing completion (Dr. Dean Sandham, Foothills Provincial General Hospital, Calgary: personal communication, 1999).

An illustrative example of the second paradox is the mechanical ventilator. This quintessential ICU technology undeniably delays death in many patients with respiratory failure and does not require a randomized trial to prove it. However, experimental studies have shown that mechanical ventilation may cause physiologic and structural lung damage. Specific ventilation strategies in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome have been associated with barotrauma, biotrauma,5 organ dysfunction6 and increased mortality. Strategies to minimize ventilator-associated lung injury include low tidal volume ventilation targeted to 6 mL/kg, which has also been associated with significantly lower mortality than higher tidal volumes.7

Many ICU technologies are disseminated before they are evaluated. However, when they are evaluated, it can be difficult to demonstrate that they make a difference.8 Some technologies prolong life while not improving (or possibly worsening) the quality of life. Without rigorous technology assessment, useless, cost-ineffective or even harmful technologies may be introduced. In 1990 the Ontario Ministry of Health convened a Critical Care Technology Working Group, which recommended more technology evaluation, education and delivery of research to purchasers and users.9 Since then, hemodynamic monitoring,10 noninvasive bloodgas monitoring,11 bronchoalveolar lavage12 and gastric tonometry13 have been evaluated using a diagnostic technology assessment framework evaluating how technology works in the laboratory, its range of uses and diagnostic accuracy, and its impact on clinicians' practices and patients' outcomes.14 Canadian investigators have also demonstrated how information furnished by bronchoscopy increases diagnostic confidence,15 explored safety of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation16 and conducted randomized trials evaluating pressure-limited ventilation.17

The mantra of technology assessment during the next millenium should champion rigour and relevance from bench to bedside, but also beyond, through health services research. Public awareness of the sparse clinical outcomes data associated with many costly ICU technologies portends well for more comprehensive evaluation in the future.

Competing interests: None declared for Dr. Cook. Dr. Sibbald has received honoraria as a consultant to a manufacturer of a pulmonary artery catheter, funding from a pharmaceutical company for conducting research related to other ICU technologies and travel assistance from a pharmaceutical company to attend critical care meetings.

Acknowledgments

Bulk reprints of CMAJ articles are available in minimum quantities of 50

For information or orders: Reprint Coordinator; tel 800 663-7336 ×2110; fax 613 565-2382; murrej{at}cma.ca

Footnotes

  • Correspondence to: Dr. Deborah J. Cook, Department of Medicine, Division of Critical Care, St. Joseph's Hospital, 50 Charlton Ave. E, Hamilton ON L8N 4A6; [email protected]

References

  1. 1.↵
    Battista RN. Innovation and diffusion of health-related technologies: a conceptual framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989;5:227-48.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Robin ED. Death by pulmonary artery flow-directed catheter: Time for a moratorium? Chest 1992;92:727-31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Naylor CD, Sibbald WJ, Sprung CL, Pinfold SP, Calvin JE, Cerra FB. Pulmonary artery catheterization: Can there be an integrated strategy for guideline development and research promotion? JAMA 1993;269:2407-11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Connors AF, Speroff T, Dawson NV, Thomas C, Harrel FE, Wagner D, et al, for the SUPPORT Investigators. The effect of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients. JAMA 1996;276:889-97.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Ranieri VM, Suter PM, Tortorella C, DeTullio R, Dayer JM, Brienza A, et al. Effect of mechanical ventilation on pulmonary and systemic release of inflammatory mediators in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1999;282:54-61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Slutsky AS, Tremblay LN. Multiple system organ failure: Is mechanical ventilation a contributing factor? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998;157:1721-5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Adult Respiratory Distress Network public Web page (www.ardsnet.org).
  8. 8.↵
    Sibbald WJ, Inman KJ. Problems in assessing the technology of critical care medicine. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1992;8(3):419-43.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Technology Subcommittee of the Working Group on Critical Care, Ontario Ministry of Health. The assessment of technology in Ontario's critical care system. CMAJ 1991;144(12):1613-5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Technology Subcommittee of the Working Group on Critical Care, Ontario Ministry of Health. Hemodynamic monitoring: a technology assessment. CMAJ 1991;145(2):114-21.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  11. 11.↵
    Technology Subcommittee of the Working Group on Critical Care, Ontario Ministry of Health. Noninvasive blood gas monitoring: a review for use in the adult critical care unit. CMAJ 1992;146(5):703-12.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  12. 12.↵
    Cook DJ, Brun-Buisson C, Guyatt GH, Sibbald WJ. Evaluation of new diagnostic technologies: bronchoalveolar lavage and the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit Care Med 1994;22:1314-22.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Keenan SP, Guyatt GH, Sibbald WJ, Cook DJ, Heyland DK, Jaeschke RZ, for the Evidence-Based Medicine in Critical Care Group. How to use articles about diagnostic technology: gastric tonometry. Crit Care Med 1999;27:1726-31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Guyatt GH, Drummond M, Feeny D, Tugwell P, Stoddart G, Haynes RB, et al. Guidelines for the clinical and economic evaluation of health care technology. Soc Sci Med 1986;22(4):393-408.
  15. 15.↵
    Heyland DK, Cook DJ, Heule M, Marshall J, Guslits B, Lang J, et al, for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. The clinical utility of invasive diagnostic techniques in the setting of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest 1999;115(4):1076-84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Rocker GM, Mackenzie MG, Williams B, Logan PM. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation: successful outcome in patients with acute lung injury/adult respiratory distress syndrome. Chest 1999;115:173-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Stewart TC, Meade MO, Cook DJ, Granton JT, Hodder R, Lapinsky S, et al. A pressure and volume limited ventilation strategy (PVLS) in patients at high risk for adult respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 1998;338(6):355-61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 161, Issue 9
2 Nov 1999
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The promise and the paradox of technology in the intensive care unit
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The promise and the paradox of technology in the intensive care unit
Deborah J. Cook, William J. Sibbald
CMAJ Nov 1999, 161 (9) 1118-1119;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
The promise and the paradox of technology in the intensive care unit
Deborah J. Cook, William J. Sibbald
CMAJ Nov 1999, 161 (9) 1118-1119;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Levels of Care in the Intensive Care Unit: A Research Program
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • When editors publish in their own journals
  • New reproductive technologies: Why are we limiting choices for infertile couples?
  • Powassan encephalitis
Show more Editorials

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Critical & intensive care
    • Patient safety & quality improvement

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: [email protected]

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire