PURPOSE: To investigate if femoral venous pressure (FVP) measurement can be used as a surrogate measure for intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) via the bladder. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter observational study. IAP and FVP were simultaneously measured in 149 patients. The effect of BMI on IAP was investigated. RESULTS: The incidences of intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) were 58 and 7% respectively. The mean APACHE II score was 22 ± 10, SAPS 2 score 42 ± 20, and SOFA score 9 ± 4. The mean IAP was 11.2 ± 4.5 mmHg versus 12.7 ± 4.7 mmHg for FVP. The bias and precision for all measurements were -1.5 and 3.6 mmHg respectively with the lower and upper limits of agreement being -8.6 and 5.7. When IAP was above 20 mmHg, the bias between IAP and FVP was 0.7 with a precision of 2.0 mmHg (lower and upper limits of agreement -3 and 4.6 respectively). Excluding those with ACS, according to the receiver operating curve analysis FVP = 11.5 mmHg predicted IAH with a sensitivity and specificity of 84.8 and 67.0% (AUC of 0.83 (95% CI 0.81-0.86) with P < 0.001). FVP = 14.5 mmHg predicted IAP above 20 mmHg with a sensitivity of 91.3% and specificity of 68.1% (AUC 0.85 (95% CI 0.79-0.91), P < 0.001). Finally, at study entry, the mean IAP in patients with a BMI less then 30 kg/m(2) was 10.6 ± 4.0 mmHg versus 13.8 ± 3.8 mmHg in patients with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: FVP cannot be used as a surrogate measure of IAP unless IAP is above 20 mmHg.
PURPOSE: To investigate if femoral venous pressure (FVP) measurement can be used as a surrogate measure for intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) via the bladder. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter observational study. IAP and FVP were simultaneously measured in 149 patients. The effect of BMI on IAP was investigated. RESULTS: The incidences of intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) were 58 and 7% respectively. The mean APACHE II score was 22 ± 10, SAPS 2 score 42 ± 20, and SOFA score 9 ± 4. The mean IAP was 11.2 ± 4.5 mmHg versus 12.7 ± 4.7 mmHg for FVP. The bias and precision for all measurements were -1.5 and 3.6 mmHg respectively with the lower and upper limits of agreement being -8.6 and 5.7. When IAP was above 20 mmHg, the bias between IAP and FVP was 0.7 with a precision of 2.0 mmHg (lower and upper limits of agreement -3 and 4.6 respectively). Excluding those with ACS, according to the receiver operating curve analysis FVP = 11.5 mmHg predicted IAH with a sensitivity and specificity of 84.8 and 67.0% (AUC of 0.83 (95% CI 0.81-0.86) with P < 0.001). FVP = 14.5 mmHg predicted IAP above 20 mmHg with a sensitivity of 91.3% and specificity of 68.1% (AUC 0.85 (95% CI 0.79-0.91), P < 0.001). Finally, at study entry, the mean IAP in patients with a BMI less then 30 kg/m(2) was 10.6 ± 4.0 mmHg versus 13.8 ± 3.8 mmHg in patients with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: FVP cannot be used as a surrogate measure of IAP unless IAP is above 20 mmHg.
Authors: N Markou; L Grigorakos; P Myrianthefs; E Boutzouka; M Rizos; P Evagelopoulou; H Apostolakos; G Baltopoulos Journal: Hepatogastroenterology Date: 2004 Jan-Feb
Authors: J F Williams; M G Seneff; B C Friedman; B J McGrath; R Gregg; J Sunner; J E Zimmerman Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 1991-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: J Merrer; B De Jonghe; F Golliot; J Y Lefrant; B Raffy; E Barre; J P Rigaud; D Casciani; B Misset; C Bosquet; H Outin; C Brun-Buisson; G Nitenberg Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-08-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kedar S Deshpande; Carlo Hatem; Harry L Ulrich; Brian P Currie; Thomas K Aldrich; Christopher W Bryan-Brown; Vladimir Kvetan Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; J Randall Curtis; Daniel De Backer; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Patricia Rocco; Jean-François Timsit; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Wojciech Dąbrowski; Edyta Kotlinska-Hasiec; Andrzej Jaroszynski; Przemyslaw Zadora; Jacek Pilat; Ziemowit Rzecki; Wojciech Zaluska; Daniel Schneditz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marije Smit; Maureen J M Werner; Annemieke Oude Lansink-Hartgring; Willem Dieperink; Jan G Zijlstra; Matijs van Meurs Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2016-10-10 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Paul R A M Depauw; Rob J M Groen; Johannes Van Loon; Wilco C Peul; Manu L N G Malbrain; Jan J De Waele Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Derek J Roberts; Jan De Waele; Roman Jaeschke; Manu L N G Malbrain; Bart De Keulenaer; Juan Duchesne; Martin Bjorck; Ari Leppaniemi; Janeth C Ejike; Michael Sugrue; Michael Cheatham; Rao Ivatury; Chad G Ball; Annika Reintam Blaser; Adrian Regli; Zsolt J Balogh; Scott D'Amours; Dieter Debergh; Mark Kaplan; Edward Kimball; Claudia Olvera Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jessalyn K Holodinsky; Derek J Roberts; Chad G Ball; Annika Reintam Blaser; Joel Starkopf; David A Zygun; Henry Thomas Stelfox; Manu L Malbrain; Roman C Jaeschke; Andrew W Kirkpatrick Journal: Crit Care Date: 2013-10-21 Impact factor: 9.097