Annika Reintam Blaser1, Silver Sarapuu, Kadri Tamme, Joel Starkopf. 1. 1Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia. 2General ICU, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Intra-abdominal hypertension may contribute to a poor outcome. Whether limiting intra-abdominal pressure measurements to preselected at-risk patients allows for sufficient detection of intra-abdominal hypertension is unclear. We aimed to clarify whether expanded intra-abdominal pressure monitoring results in an increased detection rate of intra-abdominal hypertension. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: General ICU of University Hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive adult ICU patients from 2004 to 2011. INTERVENTIONS: Intra-abdominal pressure measurements in predefined at-risk patients. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Prospectively collected data of 2,696 admissions were divided into three subgroups according to the intra-abdominal pressure measurement policy in different years: 1) 2004-2005, mechanically ventilated patients with at least one additional risk factor for intra-abdominal hypertension (multiple trauma, abdominal surgery, pancreatitis, post-cardiopulmonary resuscitation, fluid resuscitation > 5 L/24 hr, vasoactive or inotropic support, and renal replacement therapy); 2) 2006-2009, all mechanically ventilated patients expected to stay for more than or equal to 24 hours; and 3) 2010-2011, mechanically ventilated patients with a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m, positive end-expiratory pressure more than 10 cm H2O, PaO2/FIO2 less than 300, use of vasopressors/inotropes, pancreatitis, hepatic failure/cirrhosis with ascites, gastrointestinal bleeding, or postlaparotomy. In all, 2,696 patients were studied, and 1,241 patients (46.0%) underwent intra-abdominal pressure monitoring. The intra-abdominal pressure was measured in 31.7%, 55.6%, and 41.1% of patients during the first, second, and third time periods (p < 0.001), and intra-abdominal hypertension (intra-abdominal pressure ≥ 12 mm Hg) occurred in 19.9%, 20.3%, and 20.1% of patients, respectively (p = 0.972). The mean intra-abdominal pressure at admission day was an independent predictor of mortality in patients with intra-abdominal pressure measurements started within the first 24 hours (odds ratio, 1.046 [95% CI, 1.019-1.072]). The mortality of patients with intra-abdominal hypertension was 29.8% versus 18.6% in those without intra-abdominal hypertension (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Expanding the measurement of intra-abdominal pressure to more than 50% of intensive care admissions does not increase the detection rate of intra-abdominal hypertension. In patients with intra-abdominal pressure monitoring, the mean intra-abdominal pressure on the admission day is an independent predictor of mortality.
OBJECTIVE:Intra-abdominal hypertension may contribute to a poor outcome. Whether limiting intra-abdominal pressure measurements to preselected at-risk patients allows for sufficient detection of intra-abdominal hypertension is unclear. We aimed to clarify whether expanded intra-abdominal pressure monitoring results in an increased detection rate of intra-abdominal hypertension. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: General ICU of University Hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive adult ICU patients from 2004 to 2011. INTERVENTIONS: Intra-abdominal pressure measurements in predefined at-risk patients. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Prospectively collected data of 2,696 admissions were divided into three subgroups according to the intra-abdominal pressure measurement policy in different years: 1) 2004-2005, mechanically ventilated patients with at least one additional risk factor for intra-abdominal hypertension (multiple trauma, abdominal surgery, pancreatitis, post-cardiopulmonary resuscitation, fluid resuscitation > 5 L/24 hr, vasoactive or inotropic support, and renal replacement therapy); 2) 2006-2009, all mechanically ventilated patients expected to stay for more than or equal to 24 hours; and 3) 2010-2011, mechanically ventilated patients with a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m, positive end-expiratory pressure more than 10 cm H2O, PaO2/FIO2 less than 300, use of vasopressors/inotropes, pancreatitis, hepatic failure/cirrhosis with ascites, gastrointestinal bleeding, or postlaparotomy. In all, 2,696 patients were studied, and 1,241 patients (46.0%) underwent intra-abdominal pressure monitoring. The intra-abdominal pressure was measured in 31.7%, 55.6%, and 41.1% of patients during the first, second, and third time periods (p < 0.001), and intra-abdominal hypertension (intra-abdominal pressure ≥ 12 mm Hg) occurred in 19.9%, 20.3%, and 20.1% of patients, respectively (p = 0.972). The mean intra-abdominal pressure at admission day was an independent predictor of mortality in patients with intra-abdominal pressure measurements started within the first 24 hours (odds ratio, 1.046 [95% CI, 1.019-1.072]). The mortality of patients with intra-abdominal hypertension was 29.8% versus 18.6% in those without intra-abdominal hypertension (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Expanding the measurement of intra-abdominal pressure to more than 50% of intensive care admissions does not increase the detection rate of intra-abdominal hypertension. In patients with intra-abdominal pressure monitoring, the mean intra-abdominal pressure on the admission day is an independent predictor of mortality.