BACKGROUND: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. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed in 20 patients randomly scheduled to receivePRM 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). RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: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.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.
Authors: Jan J De Waele; Inneke De Laet; Bart De Keulenaer; Sandy Widder; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Adrian B Cresswell; Manu Malbrain; Zsolt Bodnar; Jorge H Mejia-Mantilla; Richard Reis; Michael Parr; Robert Schulze; Sonia Compano; Michael Cheatham Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-04-04 Impact factor: 17.440
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