We're a 25-bed, mixed ICU in a community hospital. 5% of our patients end up with Swan lines during their stay; I track our unit statistics, so I just happen to know this.
Most of our Swan lines are used for CV surgery/recovery, but we occasionally use them for patients with pulmonary HTN as well. We almost never wedge our Swans.
Stroke volume monitoring is highly useful for septic shock patients, but we rarely use Swans for sepsis management. I've been talking to a sales rep about piloting non-invasive hemodynamic monitoring on our unit for this patient population, but it's a very hard sell to the finance department.
I teach a class on hemodynamics and I consider it one of my clinical strengths. I can't imagine recovering a CABG or valve surgery without hemodynamic data, but I agree with PresG33 that many clinicians (nurses and physicians) struggle to meaningfully
interpret data from the Swan for effective management of patient care. I see a lot of drip titrations occur without a true understanding of the problem at hand (e.g., titrating up levophed for hypotension when the numbers indicate that hypovolemia is the real issue).