Volume 2 Supplement 1

Diagnosis and management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome

Open Access

Recognition and management of abdominal compartment syndrome among German anesthetists and surgeons: a national survey

  • Torsten Kaussen1Email author,
  • Jens Otto2,
  • Gerd Steinau2,
  • Jörg Höer3,
  • Pramod Kadaba Srinivasan4 and
  • Alexander Schachtrupp2
Contributed equally
Annals of Intensive Care20122(Suppl 1):S7

DOI: 10.1186/2110-5820-2-S1-S7

Published: 5 July 2012

Abstract

Background

Abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) is a life threatening condition that may affect any critically ill patient. Little is known about the recognition and management of ACS in Germany.

Methods

A questionnaire was mailed to departments of surgery and anesthesia from German hospitals with more than 450 beds.

Results

Replies (113) were received from 222 eligible hospitals (51%). Most respondents (95%) indicated that ACS plays a role in their clinical practice. Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) is not measured at all by 26%, while it is routinely done by 30%. IAP is mostly (94%) assessed via the intra-vesical route. Of the respondents, 41% only measure IAP in patients expected to develop ACS; 64% states that a simpler, more standardized application of IAP measurement would lead to increased use in daily clinical practice.

Conclusions

German anesthesiologists and surgeons are familiar with ACS. However, approximately one fourth never measures IAP, and there is considerable uncertainty regarding which patients are at risk as well as how often IAP should be measured in them.

Keywords

abdominal compartment syndrome intra-abdominal pressure intra-abdominal hypertension intensive care unit survey questionnaire bladder pressure intra-vesical pressure measurement.

Introduction

Abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) is defined as a persistent intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) of more than 20 mmHg accompanied by new organ dysfunction or failure. Left untreated, this condition has a high mortality rate [16]. Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) is defined by a sustained or repeated pathological elevation of IAP to more than 12 mmHg and is considered a precursor of ACS [1]. Both IAH and ACS may occur in any patient population requiring intensive care [7, 8].

According to surveys in Canada, Great Britain, Australasia, Belgium, China and the USA, detection and management of IAH and ACS are inconsistent [2, 4, 916]. Familiarity with the devastating consequences of increased IAP is abundant; however, the relevance of ACS in routine care varies. There is no agreement regarding the indication for IAP measurement and its timing [4]. Moreover, the threshold for decompression is still a matter of debate, as prospective randomized trials are missing [1, 10].

Whether a similar level of uncertainty concerning the recognition and management of ACS exists in Germany, and whether this may be related to the techniques available in clinical routine is unknown. We also speculate that a simple, more standardized technique might help improve monitoring of IAP. As comparable studies have yet to be published, we performed this one using a questionnaire.

Methods

In 2006, a questionnaire (see Additional file 1) was sent to the head physicians of departments of surgery and anesthesia in hospitals with more than 450 beds in Germany. This 450-bed threshold was chosen because hospitals of this size are frequently teaching hospitals and serve as referral centers for smaller hospitals with elective or out-patient surgery.

According to these criteria, the hospitals were selected via an internet-based hospital registry http://www.krankenhaus.net. A total of 222 questionnaires were sent out. Recipients were asked to reply by fax within 2.5 months. No reminder was sent.

Statistical analysis was calculated using Statistical Package for Social Sciences 12.0.1 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Some questions could have more than one answer; in these cases, results were analyzed for multiple responses. The answers were analyzed with respect to training completed by unpaired non-parametric testing (Mann-Whitney U).

Results

A total of 113 questionnaires were returned, four were incomplete or unreadable. Excluding these, 109 questionnaires were analyzed (49%). Participants stated they had completed training either in anesthesiology (49%) or surgery (51%). Their indicated years of clinical practice averaged 21.8 (range 7 to 40).

The majority (65%) stated ACS rarely plays a role in their clinical practice; 24% are concerned regularly; 6% often. Not more than 5% do not encounter this complication. Responding to 'Do you measure IAP?', 28 (26%) stated 'no'. Of those 81 respondents (73%) who measured IAP, 48 (59%) do so 'Only when clinically indicated'. Failure to establish an IAP measurement technique, cited by 22 respondents (28%, see Figure 1a, b), was the most common reason for not measuring it. The method indicated as most often used for IAP assessment was the measurement of intra-vesical pressure (bladder pressure measurement; 94%, multiple answers possible). In the other cases, a trans-gastric technique was reported. Multiple answers were possible for the question 'In which patients do you measure IAP?'. Respondents most often (41%) answered that measurement is only performed in patients thought likely to develop ACS (Figure 2).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F2110-5820-2-S1-S7/MediaObjects/13613_2012_Article_70_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Reasons for not measuring IAP and frequency of IAP measurements. (a) Stated reasons for not measuring IAP. Out of 109 respondents, 28 denied regularly measuring IAP due to the reasons presented (% of respondents, multiple answers; question 2). (b) Frequency of IAP measurements among those who stated to measure IAP. Of the 109 respondents, 81 elaborated on when to measure IAP (% of respondents, multiple answers; question 2).

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F2110-5820-2-S1-S7/MediaObjects/13613_2012_Article_70_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Patient groups which are regularly IAP monitored. Eighty-one stated their criteria regarding in which kind of patients IAP should be measured (% of respondents, multiple answers; question 4).

The majority (86%) of respondents stated that the decision to surgically decompress is rather a matter of beginning organ dysfunction than of exceeding pressure thresholds (Figure 3). A simpler, more standardized application would lead to an increased use in 70 of 104 respondents (67%). Of the 26 participants not measuring IAP, even 77% think a simplified technique would improve acceptance.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F2110-5820-2-S1-S7/MediaObjects/13613_2012_Article_70_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Critical IAH threshold calling for surgical decompression dependent on organ function and dysfunction. Ninety-four respondents stated their criteria concerning when performing decompressive laparotomy dependend on IAP and organ dysfunction (% of respondents, multiple answers; question 5)

Discussion

Consensus definitions concerning ACS have been published in order to provide a basis for current treatment [1, 3, 8]. Prospective randomized trials are missing which is probably due to the variable incidence (1% to 15%), rapid progression and the disease pattern [1719]. This situation leaves some questions open. Furthermore, the overall purpose of this survey was to study the current status in Germany.

Awareness of ACS and performance of IAP measurements

According to our results, ACS plays a role in 95% of participants' clinical practice. About one third encounter ACS regularly or often. This is comparable to other countries where familiarity with ACS reportedly ranges from 73% to 99% of respondents (Table 1). More than one third of respondents from all over the world diagnose at least five cases of ACS each year. Although knowledge regarding ACS seems abundant, about one fourth of respondents claim they never measure IAP. In other surveys, the non-measuring rate was mostly comparable (range 2% to 80%; Table 1). How those participants (who do not measure IAP) establish the diagnosis of ACS remains unclear. Clinical examination of the abdomen has a sensitivity of only 50% to 60% which is similar to a coin toss [2022]. Malbrain et al. demonstrated that also the abdominal perimeter is an inaccurate way for assessing increasing IAP [23].
Table 1

Comparison between results of current surveys related to IAH and ACS

Authors

Reference

Awareness of ACS

Yearly frequency of AS at ICUs

Performance of IAP measurements

Basis of IAH/ACS diagnosis

Measure method

Frequency of measurements

Threshold IAH

Threshold ACS

Experience with/opinion about DL and OA

Mayberry et al.

[9]

85%

14%: No cases

69% to 95%

66% IAP measure

IVP

59% If suspected

15 mmHg (11%)

 

86%: DL if IAH + OD (= ACS)

   

52%: One to five cases

 

34% Clinical

 

6% Regularly

18 mmHg (22%)

 

14%: DL if IAH alone

   

33%: Five cases

    

22 mmHg (31%)

 

If OA: Bag > absorb. Mesh > non-absorb. Mesh

        

25 mmHg (12%)

  

Kirkpatrick et al.

[10]

100%

 

52%

43% IAP measure

97% IVP

  

25 mmHg + OD

8%: DL if IAH alone

      

3% IGP

  

34 mmHg - OD

90% OA after trauma surgery

          

If OA: Bag > VAC > non-absorb. > absorb. Mesh

Ravishankar and Hunter

[4]

99%

 

76%

76% IAP measure

IVP

93% If suspected

 

20 mmHg (29%)

2%: DL if IAP > 20 mmHg alone (= IAH III)

     

24% Clinical

 

4% After EL

 

25 mmHg (71%)

27%: DL if IAP > 20 mmHg + OD (= ACS)

       

3% After EL + HVR

  

7%: DL if IAP > 25 mmHg alone (= IAH IV)

       

15%: Zero to four hourly

  

64%: DL if IAP > 25 mmHg + OD (= ACS)

       

27%: Four to eight hourly

   
       

11%: 12 hourly

   
       

3%: 24 hourly

   

Nagappan et al.

[14]

92%

'Depending on used thresholds'; ICU-dependent

48% to 93%

8% Clinical

89% IVP

8% Never

12 mmHg (11%)

IAH + OD (69%)

92%: ACS = decompression (ever)

      

39% Direct

53% Rarely

20 mmHg (64%)

≥30 mmHg - OD (33%)

64%: 'ACS should be treated regardless of IAH'

      

6% IGP

19% Regularly

   
      

6% IRP

25% Often

   

Tiwari et al.

[2]

73% to 97%

  

74% to 94% IAP measure

90% to 96% IVP

  

11 to 30 mmHg (teaching hospit.)

42% Performed DL in 0% to 25% of ACS patients

     

60% to 77% Clinical

4% to 10% Direct

  

11 to 50 mmHg (district hospital)

19% Performed DL in 25% to 50% of ACS patients

     

3% to 12% CT scan

    

16% Performed DL in 50% to 75% of ACS patients

     

3% pH manometry

    

23% Performed DL in 75% to 100% of ACS patients

Kimball et al.

[15]

75% to 98%

17%: No cases

76% to 98%

70% IAP + clinical

IVP

47% Seldom

'Patient dependent'

20 to 27 mmHg (42%)

'Useful invasive therapy options':

   

39%: One to three cases

 

20% Clinical

 

23% Often

 

12 to 19 mmHg (18% to 25%)

-Decompressive laparotomy

   

27%: Four to seven cases

 

7% IAP measure

 

8% Routinely

 

12 to 19 mmHg (18% to 25%)

-Paracentesis/drains

   

10%: Eight to 10 cases

 

3% Others

 

1% Other

  

-Escharatomy/fasciotomy

   

8%: > Ten cases

      

-Peritoneal dialysis (catheter)

De Laet et al.

[12]

80%

 

41%

51% IAP measure

'Majority' IVP

59% Never

15 mmHg (IQR 12 to 15)

20 mmHg (IQR 20 to 20)

75% Performed at least one DL

     

49% Clinical

 

28% If suspected

  

60% Performed at least one OA

       

12% Continuously

  

If OA: Bag > abs. > VAC > gauze > non-absorb.

Ejike et al.

[13]

  

76%

76% IAP measure

68% IVP

27% Never

   
     

24% Clinical

13% Direct

    
      

+/- Doppler

    
      

+/- IGP

    

Zhou et al.

[16]

 

0%: No cases

69%

31% Clinical

100% IVP

88% If suspected

 

25 mmHg

68%: First-line therapy paracentesis

   

44%: One to three cases

  

7% CVP

71% Seldom

  

56%: DL if IAP > 25 mmHg + OD (= ACS)

   

16%: Four to seven cases

   

29% Regularly

   
   

8%: Eight to ten cases

   

8% After EL

   
   

32%: > Ten cases

   

4% After HVR

   

Kaussen et ala

 

95%

6%: Never

75%

26% Clinical

94% IVP

40% If suspected

 

20 mmHg (43%)

4%: DL if IAP > 20 mmHg alone (= IAH III)

   

64%: Seldom

  

6% IGP

4%: Zero to four hourly

 

25 mmHg (57%)

39%: DL if IAP > 20 mmHg + OD (= ACS)

   

24%: Regularly

   

22%: Four to eight hourly

  

10%: DL if IAP > 25 mmHg alone (= IAH IV)

   

6%: Often

   

7%: 12 hourly

  

46%: DL if IAP > 25 mmHg + OD (= ACS)

       

2%: 24 hourly

   

Malbrain et al.

[11]

99%

0.3%: No cases

86%

69% IAP + clinical

92% IVP

42% If suspected

5 mmHg (< 1%)

20 mmHg (27%)

74%: DL if IAH + OD

       

4% Continuously

   
   

62%: One to five cases

 

24% IAP measure

4% Direct

32% Four hourly

10 mmHg (6%)

25 mmHg (12%)

9%: DL if severe OD (even without IAH)

   

20%: Six to ten cases

 

13% CT scan

3% IGP

26% Six to eight hourly

12 mmHg (18%)

> 25 mmHg (58%)

6%: DL dependent on cause of ACS

   

6%: 11 to 15 Cases

 

10% Abdom. perimeter

 

6% 12 hourly

15 mmHg (25%)

 

If OA: VAC (39%) > Bag (24%) > mesh (21%)

   

5%: 16 to 20 cases

 

8% Abdom. ultrasound

 

2% 24 hourly

20 mmHg (29%)

  
   

6%: > 25 Cases

    

25 mmHg (5%)

  
        

> 25 mHg (15%)

  
        

Others (2%)

  

Newcombe et al.

[38]

88%

 

92%

83% IAP measure

93% IVP

21% Regularly

 

≤15 mmHg (11%)

 
     

8% IAP + clinical

7% Direct

54% Sometimes

 

≤25 mmHg (59%)

 
     

7% Clinical

0% IGP

19% Never

 

> 25 mmHg (30%)

 

absorb., absorbable (mesh); abdom., abdominal; ACS, abdominal compartment syndrome; AustAsia, Australia and Asia (Australasia); Bag, 'bowel bag' such as 'Bogota bag'; CVP, central venous pressure measurement; direct, intra-abdominal pressure measurement via intra-abdominal placed probes; DL, decompressive laparotomy; EL, emergeny laparotomy; hospit., hospital; HVR, high-volume resuscitation; IAH, intra-abdominal hypertension; IAP, intra-abdominal pressure; ICU, intensive care unit; IGP, intra-gastric pressure measurement; IQR, inter-quartile range; IRP, intra-rectal pressure measurement; IVP, intra-vesical (bladder) pressure measurement; non-absorb., non-absorbable (mesh); OA, open abdomen management; OD, organ dysfunction/failure; VAC, vacuum-assisted. aUnpublished work.

Among participants measuring IAP, the majority (59%) stated they perform measurements only if clinically indicated; in contrast, 30% advocate a routine measurement one to six times per day (Figure 1b). This appears to correlate with respondents tending to perform measurements mostly in patients expected to develop ACS (40%).

IAP measurement methods

In accordance with all formerly published surveys, IAP measurement via the bladder is the most frequently used technique also in Germany (Table 1). Of the respondents, 70% stated that a simpler, more standardized technique would be used more often to assess IAP. This impression is supported by the finding that some respondents refuse bladder pressure measurement because the technique may 'not be established' or appears 'too complex in technical regards'. Both points of criticism appear unjustified. Several studies in humans as well as in animals proved replicability and reliability of the method [24, 25]. Further, the measurement techniques have become increasingly simple and user-friendly over the last years, making it no longer possible to speak of an overly complicated IAP measurement technique. For example, the manometer technique, published by Harrahill in 1998 [26] and perfected by Lee [27], offers a maximum simplification of the bladder pressure test and requires no additional instruments other than a ruler and trans-urethral catheter. Using this principle, even commercially available measurement systems have been developed (for example Foleymanometer, Holtech® medical, Charlottenlund, Denmark). Nevertheless, a minimum amount of training for personnel is required to avoid certain pitfalls. This includes, for example, ruling out a neurogenic or organic bladder dysfunction, ensuring sufficient relaxation of the local abdominal muscles, and the correct steady positioning of the patient with a continuous transparent reference point for the measurement of pressure equivalents.

Other indirect methods such as intra-gastric and intra-rectal pressure measurements rather constitute an exception than the rule and were stated to be performed by no more than 6% of respondents (Table 1). This is noteworthy in so far as different commercially available measurement systems, meanwhile, have been developed which allow to continuously monitor IAP levels via the stomach (for example CiMON®, Pulsion® Medical Systems, Munich, Germany or 'IAP catheter', Spiegelberg®, Hamburg, Germany). Continuous measurement systems are able to minimize health care providers' workload as well as ensure non-stop observation of especially at risk patients. Pressure transducers, which are directly inserted into the abdomen, even more precisely reflect the IAP. Further information with respect to direct and indirect IAP measurement methods, as well as to continuous and intermittent techniques can be found on excellent reviews which have been published by Malbrain [28] and De Keulenaer [29].

If various measurement procedures are available, the illness and the dynamic of possibly increasing abdominal pressure should be considered. The higher the IAP, and respectively, the more quickly it is increasing, the sooner continuous pressure monitoring should be considered in order to begin the necessary therapeutic procedures, including invasive ones, in time. Apparently, it is of utmost importance that IAP be quantified when, as recommended by the World Society on the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (WSACS), certain risk factors are present (Figure 2; Table 2). Using appropriate therapy algorithms, it should thereby become possible to react earlier and assertively enough to IAH that an ACS case does not even arise.
Table 2

Risk factors for IAH/ACS as proposed by the WSACS (adapted from [24])

Category

Risk factors

1. Diminished abdominal wall compliance

Mechanical ventilation, especially fighting with the ventilator and use of accessory respiratory muscles

 

Use of positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) or the presence of auto-PEEP

 

Basal pleuropneumonia

 

High body mass index

 

Pneumoperitoneum

 

Abdominal (vascular) surgery, especially with tight abdominal closures

 

Pneumatic anti-shock garments

 

Prone and other body positioning

 

Abdominal wall bleeding or rectus sheath hematomas

 

Correction of large hernias, gastroschisis or omphalocele

 

Burns with abdominal eschars

2. Increased intra-luminal contents

Gastroparesis/gastric distension/ileus/colonic pseudo-obstruction

 

Abdominal tumor

 

Retroperitoneal/abdominal wall hematoma

3. Increased intra-abdominal contents

Liver dysfunction with ascites

 

Abdominal infection (pancreatitis, peritonitis, abscess, etc.)

 

Hemoperitoneum/pneumoperitoneum

 

Acidosis (pH below 7.2)

4. Capillary leak

Hypothermia (core temperature below 33°C)

 

Polytransfusion/trauma (> 10 units of packed red cells/24 h

 

Coagulopathy (platelet count below 5,000/mm3, an activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) more than 2 times normal, a prothrombin time (PTT) below 50%, or an international standardized ration (INR) more than 1.5)

 

Sepsis (as defined by the American-European Consensus Conference definitions)

 

Bacteremia

 

Massive fluid resuscitation (> 5 l of colloid or crystalloid/24 h with capillary leak and positive fluid balance)

 

Major burns

IAP thresholds

Although the WSACS published definitions more than 5 years ago [3], there is still a remarkable lack of knowledge concerning the recommended threshold values in relation to IAH and ACS (Table 1). On the one hand, this might be caused by a lack of awareness of current literature; on the other, this might be influenced by personal experience, which might differ from published results and consensus. While the values gathered in the course of the surveys were partially over the WSACS limits for adults, the majority of pediatricians reported much lower values. This reflects the clinical impression that IAH and ACS can appear at much lower levels of abdominal pressure in children. In the framework of the 5th WSACS World Congress 2011 and using the data available at that time, Ejike et al. correctly demanded the establishment of pediatric limits (IAH: IAP > 10 mmHg, ACS: IAH + new organ dysfunction) (KT et al., unpublished work) [30].

Surgical therapy options

Most of our respondents decide to decompress the abdomen based on the presence of organ dysfunction or failure in combination with IAH (Figure 3). The attitude towards the critical threshold (> 20 mmHg or > 25 mmHg) divides respondents into two groups of similar size (39% vs 46%). This is comparable to the surveys done by Ravishankar and Mayberry ([4, 9], Table 1). One reason may be the lack of evidence as prospective outcome studies are missing and the mortality rate of ACS has remained high despite decompression [18, 31]. Tiwari describes a reluctance among surgeons to operate patients with ACS [2]. They probably try to avoid complications associated with decompression and the management of an open abdomen as described by Kirkpatrick et al. in their survey of Canadian surgeons [10]. This restraint might arise from reports about sudden deaths following surgical decompression in patients suffering from IAH and ACS [3234]. Fatal outcome in these patients might be related to fatal pulmonary embolism caused by venous stasis in the splanchnic venous capacitance pool during IAH/ACS. It has also been stated that lethal acute circulatory collapses and asystolia after decompression might be caused by the release of anaerobic metabolic products and inflammatory mediators from prior less perfused tissues (ischemia-reperfusion syndrome [35, 36]). This pathogenesis, however, is not generally accepted.

Cheatham and Safcsak have demonstrated that routinely monitoring adult patients at risk and a stage-by-stage-guided therapy algorithm comprising medical as well as surgical options may considerably reduce patient mortality by up to 50% [37]. This also supports not delaying decompression when necessary. Respondents as well as participants in other surveys are familiar with decompressive laparotomy and more or less perform this escalated therapy option partly in combination with open-abdomen management often (Table 1). In this connection, it should be noted that, in all studies, the majority of physicians interviewed work in tertiary care hospitals and high-level ICUs. To a lesser degree, these results reflect circumstances found in basic and regular care hospitals where recognition and standardized therapy of IAH and ACS seem to lead a miserable existence.

Limitations

Surveys are known to have limitations as results represent personal assessment rather than objective data. A limitation might be that the survey was only sent to the heads of departments and not to section members. It can be argued that the majority of head physicians carry out more administrative than clinical-curative tasks; meaning, they may not be sufficiently informed about current developments in the treatment of IAH and ACS which could have had a negative impact on the validity of the survey results. On the other hand, it appears less likely that establishment of IAP measurements nor therapeutic procedures, including decompressive laparotomies, are carried out in a department without the decision of the head of the department to do so. As a result, head physicians, even if less involved in everyday clinical work, are considered to be sufficiently knowledgeable to answer the questions posed.

A further limitation is that participants might have simply used their gut feeling instead of clinical databanks to answer the questions. Since doing so would cause more work, it must be assumed that the response rate would have been worse (range of response rates of published IAP surveys: 6% to 90%; Table 3). Therefore, it was decided not to perform a databank survey. The results, which are, to a great extent, identical to the available literature, appear not to express an undue bias (Table 1).
Table 3

Overview and structural description of current surveys related to IAH and ACS

Authors

Reference

Country

Year a

Questionnaires (returned/sent)

Response rate

Communication channel

Specialty of participitants

Level of medical care

Mayberry et al.

[9]

USA

1999/1997

292/473

62%

Mail

Trauma surgeons

85% Teaching hospitals

Kirkpatrick et al.

[10]

Canada

2005/2005

86/102

84%

Mail and email

Trauma surgeons

 

Ravishankar and Hunter

[4]

UK

2005/NA

137/207

66%

Mail

Intensivists

 

Nagappan et al.

[14]

Australasia

2005/2004

36/40

90%

Hand-out at workshop

ICU registrars

72% High-level ICU

        

10% Medium-level ICU

        

3% Low-level ICU

Tiwari et al.

[2]

UK

2006/2004

127/222

57%

Mail

Intensivists

25% Teaching hospitals

        

75% District hospitals

Kimball et al.

[15]

USA

2006/2001

1622/4538

36%

Mail

35% Surgeons

 
       

32% Internists

 
       

18% Pediatricians

 
       

10% Anesthetics

 
       

1% Emergency doctors

 

De Laet et al.

[12]

Belgium

2007/2005

41/689

6%

Email

Surgeons

73% Teaching hospitals

        

27% District hospitals

Ejike et al.

[13]

60% America

2010/2006

517/1107

47%

Hand-out at pediatric congresses

60% Pediatric nurses

81% Tertiary care hospitals

  

26% Europe

    

30% Pediatric intensivists

14% Community hospitals

  

12% Australasia

    

4% General pediatricians

2% Private practise

       

6% Other pediatric health care providers

1% Clinics

        

2% Others

Zhou et al.

[16]

China

2011/2010

108/141

77%

Mail

39% Emergency doctor

100% Tertiary care hospitals

       

36% Internists

 
       

19% Surgeons

 
       

6% Anesthetics

 

Kaussen et al.

 

Germany

2012b/2006

113/222

51%

Mail

52% Surgeons

Larger hospitals with > 450 patient beds

       

48% Anesthetics

 

Malbrain et al.

[11]

58% America

2012/2007

2244/8081

28%

Contacting via email/online-questionnaire

37% ICU physicians

 
  

32% Europe

    

23% Surgeons

 
  

9% Australasia

    

21% Anesthetics

 
  

1% Africa

    

8% Internists

 
       

6% Pediatricians

 
       

2% Emergency physicians

 
       

1% Cardiologists

 
       

2% Others

 

Newcombe et al.

[38]

97% USA

2012/2010

433/691

 

Hand-out at pediatric congress

Pediatric nurses

> 60% Tertiary care hospitals

        

< 30% Community hospitals

        

< 10% Others

Australasia, Australia and Asia; ICU, intensive care unit. aContains 2 annual details: 1st, year of publication; 2nd, year of conduction of underlying study/survey. bUnpublished work.

It was decided to send questionnaires to intensive care units of surgical and anesthesiological departments. Due to the current structure in Germany, patients with IAH/ACS are predominantly placed in departments of surgery and anesthesiology and by far less often present in internal departments.

However, the data display an attitude towards the management of ACS in Germany, thereby, demonstrating a lack of consensus and certainty. This might help guide future studies with a multi-center prospective randomized approach.

Conclusion

ACS is known among German anesthesiologists and surgeons, and both groups do not differ in their attitude towards this complication. Measurement of bladder pressure appears to be the current standard to assess IAP. However, about one fourth of responding physicians in Germany never measure IAP, and there is considerable uncertainty about which patients are at risk of developing ACS and how often IAP should be measured. Regarding the IAP threshold for decompression (20 or 25 mmHg), respondents remain undecided. These findings lead to the overall impression that recognition and management of IAH or ACS need to be further established in Germany.

Notes

Abbreviations

ACS: 

abdominal compartment syndrome

IAH: 

intra-abdominal hypertension

IAP: 

intra-abdominal pressure

WSACS: 

World Society on the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the directors of the departments of surgery and anesthesia who sent in their replies. We would also like to thank Dawn Nichols for linguistic advice. The charges on the publication of this article were taken on by meas of the promotion programme "Open access publishing" by the German research council (Deutsche Forshungsgemeinschaft).

This article has been published as part of Annals of Intensive Care Volume 2 Supplement 1, 2012: Diagnosis and management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome. The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://www.annalsofintensivecare.com/supplements/2/S1

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Pediatric Cardiology and Intensive Care, University Children's Hospital, Hannover Medical School (MHH)
(2)
Department of Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital
(3)
Department of Surgery, Hochtaunus-Kliniken Bad Homburg
(4)
Institute of Experimental Animal Science, RWTH Aachen University Hospital

References

  1. Malbrain ML, Cheatham ML, Kirkpatrick A, Sugrue M, De Waele J, Ivatury R: Abdominal compartment syndrome: it's time to pay attention! Intensive Care Med 2006, 32: 1912–1914. 10.1007/s00134-006-0303-6PubMedView Article
  2. Tiwari A, Myint F, Hamilton G: Recognition and management of abdominal compartment syndrome in the United Kingdom. Intensive Care Med 2006, 32: 906–909. 10.1007/s00134-006-0106-9PubMedView Article
  3. Malbrain ML, Cheatham ML, Kirkpatrick A, Sugrue M, Parr M, De Waele J, Balogh Z, Leppaniemi A, Olvera C, Ivatury R, D'Amours S, Wendon J, Hillman K, Johansson K, Kolkman K, Wilmer A: Results from the international conference of experts on intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome. I. Definitions. Intensive Care Med 2006, 32: 1722–1732. 10.1007/s00134-006-0349-5PubMedView Article
  4. Ravishankar N, Hunter J: Measurement of intra-abdominal pressure in intensive care units in the United Kingdom: a national postal questionnaire study. Br J Anaesth 2005, 94: 763–766. 10.1093/bja/aei117PubMedView Article
  5. Malbrain ML, Chiumello D, Pelosi P, Bihari D, Innes R, Ranieri VM, del Turco M, Wilmer A, Brienza N, Malcangi V, Cohen J, Japiassu A, De Keulenaer BL, Daelemans R, Jacquet L, Laterre PF, Frank G, de Souza P, Cesana B, Gattinoni L: Incidence and prognosis of intraabdominal hypertension in a mixed population of critically ill patients: a multiple-center epidemiological study. Crit Care Med 2005, 33: 315–322. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000153408.09806.1BPubMedView Article
  6. Malbrain ML, Chiumello D, Pelosi P, Wilmer A, Brienza N, Malcangi V, Bihari D, Innes R, Cohen J, Singer P, Japiassu A, Kurtop E, De Keulenaer BL, Daelemans R, del Turco M, Cosimini P, Ranieri M, Jacquet L, Laterre PF, Gattinoni L: Prevalence of intra-abdominal hypertension in critically ill patients: a multicentre epidemiological study. Intensive Care Med 2004, 30: 822–829. 10.1007/s00134-004-2169-9PubMedView Article
  7. Ivatury RR: Abdominal compartment syndrome: a century later, isn't it time to accept and promulgate? Crit Care Med 2006, 34: 2494–2495. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000235680.83667.EEPubMedView Article
  8. Cheatham ML, Malbrain ML, Kirkpatrick A, Sugrue M, Parr M, De Waele J, Balogh Z, Leppaniemi A, Olvera C, Ivatury R, D'Amours S, Wendon J, Hillman K, Wilmer A: Results from the international conference of experts on intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome. II. Recommendations. Intensive Care Med 2007, 33: 951–962. 10.1007/s00134-007-0592-4PubMedView Article
  9. Mayberry JC, Goldman RK, Mullins RJ, Brand DM, Crass RA, Trunkey DD: Surveyed opinion of American trauma surgeons on the prevention of the abdominal compartment syndrome. J Trauma 1999, 47: 509–513. 10.1097/00005373-199909000-00012PubMedView Article
  10. Kirkpatrick AW, Laupland KB, Karmali S, Bergeron E, Stewart TC, Findlay C, Parry N, Khetarpal S, Evans D: Spill your guts! Perceptions of Trauma Association of Canada member surgeons regarding the open abdomen and the abdominal compartment syndrome. J Trauma 2006, 60: 279–286. 10.1097/01.ta.0000205638.26798.dcPubMedView Article
  11. Kimball EJ, Kim W, Cheatham ML, Malbrain ML: Clinical awareness of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome in 2007. Acta Clin Belg Suppl 2007, 1: 66–73.PubMedView Article
  12. De Laet IE, Hoste EA, De Waele JJ: Survey on the perception and management of the abdominal compartment syndrome among Belgian surgeons. Acta Chir Belg 2007, 107: 648–652.PubMed
  13. Ejike JC, Newcombe J, Baerg J, Bahjri K, Mathur M: Understanding of abdominal compartment syndrome among pediatric healthcare providers. Crit Care Res Pract 2010. Epub 876013
  14. Nagappan R, Ernest D, Whitfield A: Recognition and management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome. Crit Care Resusc 2005, 7: 298–302.PubMed
  15. Kimball EJ, Rollins MD, Mone MC, Hansen HJ, Baraghoshi GK, Johnston C, Day ES, Jackson PR, Payne M, Barton RG: Survey of intensive care physicians on the recognition and management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome. Crit Care Med 2006, 34: 2340–2348. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000233874.88032.1CPubMedView Article
  16. Zhou JC, Zhao HC, Pan KH, Xu QP: Current recognition and management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome among tertiary Chinese intensive care physicians. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 2011, 12: 156–162. 10.1631/jzus.B1000185PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
  17. Balogh Z, Jones F, D'Amours S, Parr M, Sugrue M: Continuous intra-abdominal pressure measurement technique. Am J Surg 2004, 188: 679–684. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.08.052PubMedView Article
  18. De Waele JJ, Hoste EA, Malbrain ML: Decompressive laparotomy for abdominal compartment syndrome--a critical analysis. Crit Care 2006, 10: R51. 10.1186/cc4870PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
  19. Hong JJ, Cohn SM, Perez JM, Dolich MO, Brown M, McKenney MG: Prospective study of the incidence and outcome of intra-abdominal hypertension and the abdominal compartment syndrome. Br J Surg 2002, 89: 591–596. 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02072.xPubMedView Article
  20. Schachtrupp A, Jansen M, Bertram P, Kuhlen R, Schumpelick V: Abdominal compartment syndrome: significance, diagnosis and treatment. Anaesthesist 2006, 55: 660–667. 10.1007/s00101-006-1019-2PubMedView Article
  21. Kirkpatrick AW, Brenneman FD, McLean RF, Rapanos T, Boulanger BR: Is clinical examination an accurate indicator of raised intra-abdominal pressure in critically injured patients? Can J Surg 2000, 43: 207–211.PubMed CentralPubMed
  22. Sugrue M, Bauman A, Jones F, Bishop G, Flabouris A, Parr M, Stewart A, Hillman K, Deane SA: Clinical examination is an inaccurate predictor of intraabdominal pressure. World J Surg 2002, 26: 1428–1431. 10.1007/s00268-002-6411-8PubMedView Article
  23. Malbrain ML, De Laet I, Van RN, Schoonheydt K, Dits H: Can the abdominal perimeter be used as an accurate estimation of intra-abdominal pressure? Crit Care Med 2009, 37: 316–319. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318192678ePubMedView Article
  24. De Waele JJ, De Laet I, Malbrain ML: Rational intraabdominal pressure monitoring: how to do it? Acta Clin Belg Suppl 2007, 1: 16–25.PubMedView Article
  25. Balogh Z, De Waele JJ, Malbrain ML: Continuous intra-abdominal pressure monitoring. Acta Clin Belg Suppl 2007, 1: 26–32.PubMedView Article
  26. Harrahill M: Intra-abdominal pressure monitoring. J Emerg Nurs 1998, 24: 465–466. 10.1016/S0099-1767(98)70019-4PubMedView Article
  27. Lee SL, Anderson JT, Kraut EJ, Wisner DH, Wolfe BM: A simplified approach to the diagnosis of elevated intra-abdominal pressure. J Trauma 2002, 52: 1169–1172. 10.1097/00005373-200206000-00024PubMedView Article
  28. Malbrain ML: Different techniques to measure intra-abdominal pressure (IAP): time for a critical re-appraisal. Intensive Care Med 2004, 30: 357–371. 10.1007/s00134-003-2107-2PubMedView Article
  29. De Keulenaer BL, Regli A, Malbrain ML: Intra-abdominal measurement techniques: is there anything new? Am Surg 2011,77(Suppl 1):S17–22.PubMed
  30. Ejike JC, Mathur M, Moores DC: Abdominal compartment syndrome: focus on the children. Am Surg 2011, 77: 72–77.
  31. De Waele JJ, Pletinckx P, Blot S, Hoste E: Saline volume in transvesical intra-abdominal pressure measurement: enough is enough. Intensive Care Med 2006, 32: 455–459. 10.1007/s00134-005-0062-9PubMedView Article
  32. Morris JA Jr, Eddy VA, Blinman TA, Rutherford EJ, Sharp KW: The staged celiotomy for trauma. Issues in unpacking and reconstruction. Ann Surg 1993, 217: 576–584. 10.1097/00000658-199305010-00019PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
  33. Schein M, Wittmann DH, Aprahamian CC, Condon RE: The abdominal compartment syndrome: the physiological and clinical consequences of elevated intra-abdominal pressure. J Am Coll Surg 1995, 180: 745–753.PubMed
  34. Shelly MP, Robinson AA, Hesford JW, Park GR: Haemodynamic effects following surgical release of increased intra-abdominal pressure. Br J Anaesth 1987, 59: 800–805. 10.1093/bja/59.6.800PubMedView Article
  35. Bathe OF, Chow AW, Phang PT: Splanchnic origin of cytokines in a porcine model of mesenteric ischemia-reperfusion. Surgery 1998, 123: 79–88. 10.1016/S0039-6060(98)70232-6PubMedView Article
  36. Cullen DJ, Coyle JP, Teplick R, Long MC: Cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal effects of massively increased intra-abdominal pressure in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 1989, 17: 118–121. 10.1097/00003246-198902000-00002PubMedView Article
  37. Cheatham ML, Safcsak K: Is the evolving management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome improving survival? Crit Care Med 2010, 38: 402–407. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181b9e9b1PubMedView Article
  38. Newcombe J, Mathur M, Bahjiri K, Ejike JC: Pediatric critical care nurses' experience with abdominal compartment syndrome. Annals of Intensive Care, in press.

Copyright

© Kaussen et al.; licensee Springer 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement