Investigators have raised doubts as to the safety of the Swan Ganz catheter (SGC). In order to define the point of view of cardiologists in our country, the Argentine Society of Cardiology's Emergency Council organized a meeting to analyze their views in different settings (non-cardiac surgery, cardiac surgery, acute coronary syndromes and heart failure) using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method. A detailed review with the scientific evidence was sent to the experts in cardiology prior to the meeting in the SAC auditorium where the panellists selected the clinical variables create the specific situations. These hypothetic situations were resent to the panellists at a second stage for their individual evaluation, rating the benefit-to-harm ratio of the procedure on a scale of 1 to 9 (1 meant that the expected harms greatly outweighed the expected benefits, and 9 that the expected benefits greatly outweighed the expected harms, 5 could mean either that the harms and benefits were roughly equal). Two experts analyzed the results, describing the agreement/disagreement ratio. Finally, each indication was classified as "appropriate" "uncertain" or "inappropriate" ,for the procedure in accordance with the panelists' median score: median scores in the 1-3 range were classified as inappropriate, those in the 4-6 range as uncertain, and those in the 7-9 range as appropriate. We observed high disagreement rates in SGC indications between cardiologists. However, the panelists were in favor of SGC use when situations included shock and myocardial dysfunction, especially in the presence of organic dysfunction. There were some situations when panelists considered SGC not useful, in patients without organ failure.