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

The effect of non-invasive ventilation on intra-abdominal pressure

Background: Non-invasive ventilation is a well-established treatment modality in patients with respiratory failure of different aetiologies. A previous case report described how non-invasive ventilation caused gastric distension and intra-abdominal hypertension with subsequent cardio-respiratory arrest and clinical recovery following resuscitative efforts including gastric decompression with a nasogastric tube. Methods: The aim of this prospective multicentre observational study was to assess the effect of non-invasive ventilation on intra-abdominal pressure. Following informed consent, intra-abdominal pressure and PaCO2were measured before and after the application of non-invasive ventilation for up to three days in critically ill patients requiring non-invasive ventilation. Results: Thirty-five patients were enrolled; mean (±SD) age of 67.8 (±12.5) years, median (interquartile range) body mass index of 27.9 (24.5-30.0) kg m-2, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 15.8 (±6.4). On admission and after 24 hours of non-invasive ventilation, intra-abdominal pressure was 11.0 (7.5-15.0) mm Hg and 11.0 (8.5-14.5) mm Hg (P = 0.82) and PaCO2was 44.4 (±11.4) mm Hg and 51.3 (±14.3) mm Hg (P = 0.19), respectively. Conclusions: The application of non-invasive ventilation was not associated with an increase in intra-abdominal pressure over 72 hours in this small observational study. Thus, it appears that intra-abdominal pressure does not frequently increase when applying non-invasive ventilation in critically ill patients with respiratory failure

Decompressive laparotomy for abdominal compartment syndrome

Background: The effect of decompressive laparotomy on outcomes in patients with abdominal compartment syndrome has been poorly investigated. The aim of this prospective cohort study was to describe the effect of decompressive laparotomy for abdominal compartment syndrome on organ function and outcomes. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study in adult patients who underwent decompressive laparotomy for abdominal compartment syndrome. The primary endpoints were 28-day and 1-year all-cause mortality. Changes in intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and organ function, and laparotomy-related morbidity were secondary endpoints. Results: Thirty-three patients were included in the study (20 men). Twenty-seven patients were surgical admissions treated for abdominal conditions. The median (i.q.r.) Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score was 26 (20-32). Median IAP was 23 (21-27) mmHg before decompressive laparotomy, decreasing to 12 (9-15), 13 (8-17), 12 (9-15) and 12 (9-14) mmHg after 2, 6, 24 and 72 h. Decompressive laparotomy significantly improved oxygenation and urinary output. Survivors showed improvement in organ function scores, but non-survivors did not. Fourteen complications related to the procedure developed in eight of the 33 patients. The abdomen could be closed primarily in 18 patients. The overall 28-day mortality rate was 36 per cent (12 of 33), which increased to 55 per cent (18 patients) at 1 year. Non-survivors were no different from survivors, except that they tended to be older and on mechanical ventilation. Conclusion: Decompressive laparotomy reduced IAP and had an immediate effect on organ function. It should be considered in patients with abdominal compartment syndrome

Cytokine removal in human septic shock : where are we and where are we going?

Although improving, the mortality from septic shock still remains high despite increased international awareness. As a consequence, much effort has focused on alternative treatment strategies in an effort to improve outcomes. The application of blood purification therapies to improve immune homeostasis has been suggested as one such method, but these approaches, such as high-volume continuous haemofiltration or cytokine and/or endotoxin removal, have enjoyed little success to date. More recently, the use of sorbent technologies has attracted much attention. These adsorbers are highly effective at removing inflammatory mediators, in particular, cytokines, from the bloodstream. This narrative review is the executive summary of meetings held throughout the 6th International Fluid Academy Days in Antwerp, Belgium (Nov 23-25, 2017), focusing on the current understanding regarding the use of such adsorbers in humans with septic shock. We followed a modified Delphi approach involving a combination of evidence appraisal together with expert opinion in order to achieve recommendations for practice and, importantly, future research

Direct intra-abdominal pressure monitoring via piezoresistive pressure measurement: a technical note

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Piezoresistive pressure measurement technique (PRM) has previously been applied for direct IAP measurement in a porcine model using two different devices. Aim of this clinical study was to assess both devices regarding complications, reliability and agreement with IVP in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A prospective cohort study was performed in 20 patients randomly scheduled to receive PRM either by a Coach^®-probe or an Accurate++^®-probe (both MIPM, Mammendorf, Germany). Probes were placed on the greater omentum and passed through the abdominal wall paralleling routine drainages. PRM was compared with IVP measurement by t-testing and by calculating mean difference as well as limits of agreement (LA).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were no probe related complications. Due to technical limitations, data could be collected in 3/10 patients with Coach^®and in 7/10 patients with Accurate++^®. Analysis was carried out only for Accurate++^®. Mean values did not differ to mean IVP values. Mean difference to IVP was 0.1 ± 2.8 mmHg (LA: -5.5 to 5.6 mmHg).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Direct IAP measurement was clinically uneventful. Although results of Accurate++^®were comparable to IVP, the device might be too fragile for IAP measurements in the clinical setting. Local ethical committee trial registration: EK2024</p