Intra-abdominal hypertension due to heparin - induced retroperitoneal hematoma in patients with ventricle assist devices: report of four cases and review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Elevated intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) has been identified as a cascade of pathophysiologic changes leading in end-organ failure due to decreasing compliance of the abdomen and the development of abdomen compartment syndrome (ACS). Spontaneous retroperitoneal hematoma (SRH) is a rare clinical entity seen almost exclusively in association with anticoagulation states, coagulopathies and hemodialysis; that may cause ACS among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and if treated inappropriately represents a high mortality rate.</p> <p>Case Presentation</p> <p>We report four patients (a 36-year-old Caucasian female, a 59-year-old White-Asian male, a 64-year-old Caucasian female and a 61-year-old Caucasian female) that developed an intra-abdominal hypertension due to heparin-induced retroperitoneal hematomas after implantation of ventricular assist devices because of heart failure. Three of the patients presented with dyspnea at rest, fatigue, pleura effusions in chest XR and increased heart rate although b-blocker therapy. A 36-year old female (the forth patient) presented with sudden, severe shortness of breath at rest, 10 days after an "acute bronchitis". At the time of the event in all cases international normalized ratio (INR) was <3.5 and partial thromboplastin time <65 sec. The patients were treated surgically, the large hematomas were evacuated and the systemic manifestations of the syndrome were reversed.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Identifying patients in the ICU at risk for developing ACS with constant surveillance can lead to prevention. ACS is the natural progression of pressure-induced end-organ changes and develops if IAP is not recognized and treated in a timely manner. Failure to recognize and appropriately treat ACS is fatal while timely intervention - if indicated - is associated with improvements in organ function and patient survival. Means for surgical decision making are based on clinical indicators of adverse physiology, rather than on a single measured parameter.</p

Anion gap, anion gap corrected for albumin, base deficit and unmeasured anions in critically ill patients: implications on the assessment of metabolic acidosis and the diagnosis of hyperlactatemia

Abstract Background Base deficit (BD), anion gap (AG), and albumin corrected anion gap (ACAG) are used by clinicians to assess the presence or absence of hyperlactatemia (HL). We set out to determine if these tools can diagnose the presence of HL using cotemporaneous samples. Methods We conducted a chart review of ICU patients who had cotemporaneous arterial blood gas, serum chemistry, serum albumin (Alb) and lactate(Lac) levels measured from the same sample. We assessed the capacity of AG, BD, and ACAG to diagnose HL and severe hyperlactatemia (SHL). HL was defined as Lac > 2.5 mmol/L. SHL was defined as a Lac of > 4.0 mmol/L. Results From 143 patients we identified 497 series of lab values that met our study criteria. Mean age was 62.2 ± 15.7 years. Mean Lac was 2.11 ± 2.6 mmol/L, mean AG was 9.0 ± 5.1, mean ACAG was 14.1 ± 3.8, mean BD was 1.50 ± 5.4. The area under the curve for the ROC for BD, AG, and ACAG to diagnose HL were 0.79, 0.70, and 0.72, respectively. Conclusion AG and BD failed to reliably detect the presence of clinically significant hyperlactatemia. Under idealized conditions, ACAG has the capacity to rule out the presence of hyperlactatemia. Lac levels should be obtained routinely in all patients admitted to the ICU in whom the possibility of shock/hypoperfusion is being considered. If an AG assessment is required in the ICU, it must be corrected for albumin for there to be sufficient diagnostic utility.</p

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008

SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). CONCLUSIONS: Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients