What every ICU clinician needs to know about the cardiovascular effects caused by abdominal hypertension

The effects of increased intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) on cardiovascular function are well recognized and include a combined negative effect on preload, afterload and contractility. The aim of this review is to summarize the current knowledge on this topic. The presence of intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) erroneously increases barometric filling pressures like central venous (CVP) and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP) (since these are zeroed against atmospheric pressure). Transmural filling pressures (calculated by subtracting the pleural pressure from the end-expiratory CVP value) may better reflect the true preload status but are difficult to obtain at the bedside. Alternatively, since pleural pressures are seldom measured, transmural CVP can also be estimated by subtracting half of the IAP from the end-expiratory CVP value, since abdominothoracic transmission is on average 50%. Volumetric preload indicators, such as global and right ventricular end-diastolic volumes or the left ventricular end-diastolic area, also correlate better with true preload. When using functional hemodynamic monitoring parameters like stroke volume variation (SVV) or pulse pressure variation (PPV) one must bear in mind that increased IAP will increase these values (via a concomitant increase in intrathoracic pressure). The passive leg raising test may be a false negative in IAH. Calculation of the abdominal perfusion pressure (as mean arterial pressure minus IAP) has been shown to be a better resuscitation endpoint than IAP alone. Finally, it is re-assuring that transpulmonary thermodilution techniques have been validated in the setting of IAH and abdominal compartment syndrome. In conclusion, the clinician must be aware of the different effects of IAH on cardiovascular function in order to assess the volume status accurately and to optimize hemodynamic performance

A clinician’s guide to management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome in critically ill patients

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2020. Other selected articles can be found online at . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901

Effect of bladder volume on measured intravesical pressure: a prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION: Correct bedside measurement of intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) is important. The bladder method is considered as the gold standard for indirect IAP measurement, but the instillation volumes reported in the literature vary substantially. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of instillation volume on intra-bladder pressure (IBP) as an estimation for IAP in critically ill patients. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study in 13 sedated and mechanically ventilated patients, we used a revised closed system repeated measurement technique for measurement of IBP. After the system was flushed, IBP was measured with 25 ml increments up to 300 ml. The absolute bias for each volume was calculated as IBP at a given volume minus IBP at zero volume. RESULTS: In total, 30 measurement sets were performed (mean 2.3 per patient). The median IBP at 25 ml was already significantly higher than IBP at zero volume (7.5 versus 6 mmHg). There was no correlation between IBP at zero volume and absolute IBP bias at any bladder volume. Median absolute IBP bias was 1.5 mmHg at 50 ml; 2.5 mmHg at 100 ml; 5.5 mmHg at 150 ml; and up to 11 mmHg at 300 ml. CONCLUSION: Larger instillation volumes than the usually recommended 50 ml to estimate IAP by bladder pressure may cause clinically relevant overestimation of IAP. Small volumes to a maximum of 25 ml, enough to create a fluid column and to remove air, may be sufficient

A comparison of third-generation semi-invasive arterial waveform analysis with thermodilution in patients undergoing coronary surgery

Uncalibrated semi-invasive continous monitoring of cardiac index (CI) has recently gained increasing interest. The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of CI determination based on arterial waveform analysis with transpulmonary thermodilution. Fifty patients scheduled for elective coronary surgery were studied after induction of anaesthesia and before and after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), respectively. Each patient was monitored with a central venous line, the PiCCO system, and the FloTrac/Vigileo-system. Measurements included CI derived by transpulmonary thermodilution and uncalibrated semi-invasive pulse contour analysis. Percentage changes of CI were calculated. There was a moderate, but significant correlation between pulse contour CI and thermodilution CI both before (r(2) = 0.72, P < 0.0001) and after (r(2) = 0.62, P < 0.0001) CPB, with a percentage error of 31% and 25%, respectively. Changes in pulse contour CI showed a significant correlation with changes in thermodilution CI both before (r(2) = 0.52, P < 0.0001) and after (r(2) = 0.67, P < 0.0001) CPB. Our findings demonstrated that uncalibrated semi-invasive monitoring system was able to reliably measure CI compared with transpulmonary thermodilution in patients undergoing elective coronary surgery. Furthermore, the semi-invasive monitoring device was able to track haemodynamic changes and trends

Awareness and knowledge of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome: results of an international survey

Background: Surveys have demonstrated a lack of physician awareness of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome (IAH/ACS) and wide variations in the management of these conditions, with many intensive care units (ICUs) reporting that they do not measure intra-abdominal pressure (IAP). We sought to determine the association between publication of the 2006/2007 World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (WSACS) Consensus Definitions and Guidelines and IAH/ACS clinical awareness and management. Methods: The WSACS Executive Committee created an interactive online survey with 53 questions, accessible from November 2006 until December 2008. The survey was endorsed by the WSACS, the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM). A link to the survey was emailed to all members of the supporting societies. Participants of the 3rd World Congress on Abdominal Compartment Syndrome meeting (March 2007, Antwerp, Belgium) were also asked to complete the questionnaire. No reminders were sent. Based on 13 knowledge questions, an overall score was calculated (expressed as percentage). Results: A total of 2,244 of the approximately 10,000 clinicians who were sent the survey responded (response rate: 22.4%). Most of the 2,244 respondents (79.2%) completing the survey were physicians or physicians in training and the majority were residing in North America (53.0%). The majority of responders (85%) were familiar with IAP/IAH/ACS, but only 28% were aware of the WSACS consensus definitions for IAH/ACS. Three quarters of respondents considered the cut-off for IAH to be at least 15 mm Hg, and nearly two thirds believed the cut-off for ACS was higher than the currently suggested consensus definition (20 mm Hg). In 67.8% of respondents, organ dysfunction was only considered a problem with IAP of 20 mm Hg or higher. IAP was measured most frequently via the bladder (91.9%), but the majority reported that they instilled volumes well above the current guidelines. Surgical decompression was frequently used to treat IAH/ACS, whereas medical management was only attempted by about half of the respondents. Decisions to decompress the abdomen were predominantly based on the severity of IAP elevation and presence of organ dysfunction (74.4%). Overall knowledge scores were low (43 +/- 15%); respondents who were aware of the WSACS had a better score compared to those who were not (49.6% vs 38.6%, P < 0.001). Conclusions: This survey showed that although most responding clinicians claim to be familiar with IAH and ACS, knowledge of published consensus definitions, measurement techniques, and clinical management is inadequate