INTRODUCTION: Over the past number of years, there has been an increasing interest in the pathophysiological phenomena intraabdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). Foreign studies have shown considerably national differences in the interpretation of the two phenomena. The purpose of this questionnaire study was to survey which group of patients is examined for IAH and ACS, how the examination is carried out and how the two conditions are treated in surgical and intensive care units in Denmark. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all relevant surgical and intensive care units in Denmark. RESULTS: The response rate was 81%. 74% intensive care units and 31% surgical wards measured IAP. 100% used the intravesical method. International guidelines were followed in 11% of surgical wards and 18% of the intensive care units regarding how often IAP should be measured and 44%/ 32% regarding at what IAP level surgical intervention should be considered. 78% of the wards and 79% of the intensive care units that measured IAP had celiotomy as a treatment modality. There were major differences between both surgical wards and intensive care units regarding which group of patients should have IAP measured. CONCLUSION: Considering the differences in clinical practice and the discrepancy to international guidelines interdisciplinary national guideline might contribute to a more uniform evaluation and treatment of patients with IAH or ACS.
INTRODUCTION: Over the past number of years, there has been an increasing interest in the pathophysiological phenomena intraabdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). Foreign studies have shown considerably national differences in the interpretation of the two phenomena. The purpose of this questionnaire study was to survey which group of patients is examined for IAH and ACS, how the examination is carried out and how the two conditions are treated in surgical and intensive care units in Denmark. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all relevant surgical and intensive care units in Denmark. RESULTS: The response rate was 81%. 74% intensive care units and 31% surgical wards measured IAP. 100% used the intravesical method. International guidelines were followed in 11% of surgical wards and 18% of the intensive care units regarding how often IAP should be measured and 44%/ 32% regarding at what IAP level surgical intervention should be considered. 78% of the wards and 79% of the intensive care units that measured IAP had celiotomy as a treatment modality. There were major differences between both surgical wards and intensive care units regarding which group of patients should have IAP measured. CONCLUSION: Considering the differences in clinical practice and the discrepancy to international guidelines interdisciplinary national guideline might contribute to a more uniform evaluation and treatment of patients with IAH or ACS.
Authors: Adrian Dragu; Peter Klein; Frank Unglaub; Elias Polykandriotis; Ulrich Kneser; Werner Hohenberger; Raymund E Horch Journal: World J Surg Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 3.352