Literature DB >> 22873411

Intra-abdominal pressure measurement using the FoleyManometer does not increase the risk for urinary tract infection in critically ill patients.

Nele Desie1, Alexandra Willems, Inneke De Laet, Hilde Dits, Niels Van Regenmortel, Karen Schoonheydt, Martine Van De Vyvere, Manu Lng Malbrain.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) monitoring using the FoleyManometer (Holtech Medical, Charlottenlund, Denmark) increases the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI).
DESIGN: A retrospective database review was conducted.
SETTING: The study was conducted in the 12-bed medical intensive care unit of ZNA Stuivenberg Hospital (Antwerp, Belgium), a tertiary hospital. PATIENTS: There were 5,890 patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit of which 1,097 patients underwent intrabladder pressure (IBP) monitoring as estimate for IAP.
INTERVENTIONS: Crude and adjusted UTI rates were compared among patients undergoing IAP measurements with three different intrabladder methods: a modified homemade technique, a FoleyManometer with 35 ml reservoir, and a FoleyManometer low volume (FoleyManometerLV) with less than 10 ml priming volume. MEASUREMENTS AND
RESULTS: Four consecutive time periods of 24 months were defined and compared with regard to IAP measurement: period 1 (2000-2001), during which IAP monitoring was not used routinely (which serves as a control group), was compared with period 2 (2002-2003), using a modified homemade technique; period 3 (2004-2005), introducing the FoleyManometer; and finally period 4 (2006-2007), in which the FoleyManometerLV was introduced. The incidence of IBP measurements increased from 1.4% in period 1 to 45.4% in period 4 (p < 0.001). At the same time, the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (version 2) (SAPS-II) increased significantly from 24.4 ± 21.5 to 34.9 ± 18.7 (p < 0.001) together with the percentage of ventilated patients from 18.6% to 40.7% (p < 0.001). In total, 1,097 patients had IAP measurements via the bladder. The UTI rates were adjusted for disease severity by multiplying each crude rate with the ratio of control versus study patient SAPS-II probability of mortality. Crude and adjusted UTI rates per 1,000 catheter days (CD) were on average 16.1 and 12.8/1,000 CD, respectively, and were not significantly different between the four time periods.
CONCLUSIONS: Intrabladder pressure monitoring as estimate for IAP either via a closed transducer technique or the closed FoleyManometer technique seems safe and does not alter the risk of UTI in critically ill patients.

Entities:  

Year:  2012        PMID: 22873411      PMCID: PMC3390297          DOI: 10.1186/2110-5820-2-S1-S10

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intensive Care        ISSN: 2110-5820            Impact factor:   6.925


  21 in total

1.  Intravesicular pressure monitoring does not cause urinary tract infection.

Authors:  Michael L Cheatham; Scott G Sagraves; Jeffery L Johnson; Mark W White
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2006-08-29       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Clinical examination is an inaccurate predictor of intraabdominal pressure.

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

3.  A simple technique to accurately determine intra-abdominal pressure.

Authors:  I L Kron
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 7.598

4.  The relative merits of various methods of indirect measurement of intraabdominal pressure as a guide to closure of abdominal wall defects.

Authors:  S R Lacey; J Bruce; S P Brooks; J Griswald; W Ferguson; J E Allen; T C Jewett; M P Karp; D R Cooney
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  1987-12       Impact factor: 2.545

5.  Determination of intra-abdominal pressure using a transurethral bladder catheter: clinical validation of the technique.

Authors:  T J Iberti; C E Lieber; E Benjamin
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 7.892

6.  Incidence and risk factors of device-associated infections and associated mortality at the intensive care in the Dutch surveillance system.

Authors:  Tjallie I I van der Kooi; Annette S de Boer; Judith Manniën; Jan C Wille; Mariëlle T Beaumont; Ben W Mooi; Susan van den Hof
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2006-12-05       Impact factor: 17.440

7.  Bladder pressure measurements are an independent predictor of urinary tract infection in trauma patients.

Authors:  Therèse M Duane; Holly Brown; Luke G Wolfe; Ajai K Malhotra; Michel B Aboutanos; Rao R Ivatury
Journal:  Surg Infect (Larchmt)       Date:  2010-12-20       Impact factor: 2.150

8.  Can the abdominal perimeter be used as an accurate estimation of intra-abdominal pressure?

Authors:  Manu L N G Malbrain; Inneke De laet; Niels Van Regenmortel; Karen Schoonheydt; Hilde Dits
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  Transvesical intra-abdominal pressure measurement using minimal instillation volumes: how low can we go?

Authors:  I De laet; E Hoste; Jan J De Waele
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2008-01-29       Impact factor: 17.440

10.  What is the normal intra-abdominal pressure in critically ill children and how should we measure it?

Authors:  J Chiaka Ejike; Khaled Bahjri; Mudit Mathur
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 7.598

View more
  5 in total

1.  Open Abdomen Treated with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy: Indications, Management and Survival.

Authors:  A Seternes; L C Rekstad; S Mo; P Klepstad; D L Halvorsen; T Dahl; M Björck; A Wibe
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  How much does decompressive laparotomy reduce the mortality rate in primary abdominal compartment syndrome?: A single-center prospective study on 66 patients.

Authors:  Mircea Muresan; Simona Muresan; Klara Brinzaniuc; Septimiu Voidazan; Daniela Sala; Ovidiu Jimborean; Al Husseim Hussam; Tivadar Bara; Gabriel Popescu; Cristian Borz; Radu Neagoe
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.889

3.  Intrabladder pressure as predictor of intra-abdominal pressure in horses.

Authors:  Vanessa B de Paula; Paulo A Canola; Gabriela G Rivera; Dárcio Z Filho; Gabriel P D Amaral; Guilherme C Ferraz; Antônio S Ferraudo; Júlio C Canola
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-10       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  Risk factors for intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome among adult intensive care unit patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

5.  Surgical Intervention Strategies of Necrotizing Pancreatitis With Abdominal Compartment Syndrome.

Authors:  Shih-Yi Kao; Tien-Hua Chen; Chien-Ying Wang; Chen-Yuan Hsiao; Ching-Shu Chiang; Shu-Cheng Chou; Jui-Yu Chen; Pei-Jiun Tsai
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2021 Nov-Dec 01       Impact factor: 3.327

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.