OBJECTIVE: Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurement techniques vary in automaticity and reproducibility. This study evaluated the intra- and interobserver variability of two new IAP measurement techniques. METHODS: A one-half open, 30-l container was used with two IAP catheters (Foley Manometer, balloon-tipped catheter) contained in a 100-ml infusion bag. To simulate intra-abdominal hypertension the container was filled with water using 5-cm increments (0-25 cmH2O). Pressure was determined by observers using the Foley Manometer and simultaneously recorded using an IAP monitor. Observers were blinded to the reference levels. RESULTS: Fifteen observers conducted three pressure readings at each of the six pressure levels with the Foley technique, giving 270 readings. These were paired with the automated monitor readings and the height of the water column. The intra- and interobserver coefficients of variation were low for both methods. The Spearman correlation coefficient was higher than 0.9 for all paired measurements and Bland-Altman analysis comparing the reference H2O column to both measurement techniques showed a very good agreement at all pressure intervals (bias 0.1+/-0.6 cmH2O) and a consistent, low underestimation of the reference water column pressure by both techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Both the Foley Manometer and the IAP monitor are reliable and reproducible methods to measure IAP in this in vitro model. The coefficient of variation for each technique is low and decreases with increasing IAP, the monitor giving more reproducible results than the Foley Manometer.
OBJECTIVE: Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurement techniques vary in automaticity and reproducibility. This study evaluated the intra- and interobserver variability of two new IAP measurement techniques. METHODS: A one-half open, 30-l container was used with two IAP catheters (Foley Manometer, balloon-tipped catheter) contained in a 100-ml infusion bag. To simulate intra-abdominal hypertension the container was filled with water using 5-cm increments (0-25 cmH2O). Pressure was determined by observers using the Foley Manometer and simultaneously recorded using an IAP monitor. Observers were blinded to the reference levels. RESULTS: Fifteen observers conducted three pressure readings at each of the six pressure levels with the Foley technique, giving 270 readings. These were paired with the automated monitor readings and the height of the water column. The intra- and interobserver coefficients of variation were low for both methods. The Spearman correlation coefficient was higher than 0.9 for all paired measurements and Bland-Altman analysis comparing the reference H2O column to both measurement techniques showed a very good agreement at all pressure intervals (bias 0.1+/-0.6 cmH2O) and a consistent, low underestimation of the reference water column pressure by both techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Both the Foley Manometer and the IAP monitor are reliable and reproducible methods to measure IAP in this in vitro model. The coefficient of variation for each technique is low and decreases with increasing IAP, the monitor giving more reproducible results than the Foley Manometer.
Authors: Michael Quintel; Paolo Pelosi; Pietro Caironi; Jurgen Peter Meinhardt; Thomas Luecke; Peter Herrmann; Paolo Taccone; Christian Rylander; Franco Valenza; Eleonora Carlesso; Luciano Gattinoni Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2003-12-11 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Alexander Schachtrupp; Christian Tons; Volker Fackeldey; Joerg Hoer; Marcus Reinges; Volker Schumpelick Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2003-08-12 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Michael Sugrue; Adrian Bauman; Felicity Jones; Gillian Bishop; Arthas Flabouris; Michael Parr; Anthony Stewart; Ken Hillman; Stephen A Deane Journal: World J Surg Date: 2002-09-26 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Manu L N G Malbrain; Davide Chiumello; Paolo Pelosi; Alexander Wilmer; Nicola Brienza; Vincenzo Malcangi; David Bihari; Richard Innes; Jonathan Cohen; Pierre Singer; Andre Japiassu; Elizabeth Kurtop; Bart L De Keulenaer; Ronny Daelemans; Monica Del Turco; P Cosimini; Marco Ranieri; Luc Jacquet; Pierre-François Laterre; Luciano Gattinoni Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-02-03 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: F M Sánchez-Margallo; J L Moyano-Cuevas; R Latorre; J Maestre; L Correa; J B Pagador; L F Sánchez-Peralta; J A Sánchez-Margallo; J Usón-Gargallo Journal: Surg Radiol Anat Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 1.246
Authors: Christoph Meier; René Schramm; Joerg H Holstein; Burkhardt Seifert; Otmar Trentz; Michael D Menger Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2006-08-29 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Inneke E De Laet; Mariska Ravyts; Wesley Vidts; Jody Valk; Jan J De Waele; Manu L N G Malbrain Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2008-06-17 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Stephan M Jakob; Rafael Knuesel; Jyrki J Tenhunen; Richard Pradl; Jukka Takala Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2010-07-04 Impact factor: 3.067