Schachtrupp Alexander, Tons Christian, Fackeldey Volker, Hoer Joerg, Reinges Marcus, Schumpelick Volker
Department of Surgery, Rhenish-Westphalian Technical University Aachen, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Intensive Care Med. 2003 Sep;29(9):1605-8. doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-1847-3. Epub 2003 Aug 12.
Intravesical bladder pressure (IVP) measurement is considered to be the gold standard for the assessment of intra-abdominal pressure (IAP). However, this method is indirect, discontinuous, and potentially infectious and relies on a physiological bladder function. This study evaluated two novel methods for direct, continuous IAP measurement.
Experimental study in an animal research laboratory.
18 male domestic pigs.
CO(2) was insufflated to increase the IAP to 30 mmHg for 18 and 24 h in six animals each. Another six animals served as controls. A piezoresistive (PRM) and an air-capsule (ACM) pressure measurement probe were placed intra-abdominally and of IAP was measured every 1 h (PRM/ACM) or every 2 h (IVP). The mean difference between insufflator readings and IAP values and limits of agreement (mean difference +/-2 SD) were calculated.
In the presence of applied pressure IVP and PRM remained significantly below insufflator readings while ACM values showed no difference. Mean difference (and limits of agreement) were 4.5 (-2.1 to 11.1 mmHg), 1.6 (-8.0 to 11.2 mmHg), and 0.5 (-4.5 to 5.4 mmHg) for IVP, PRM, and ACM. The mean measurement-to-measurement drift of the ACM values was 9.0+/-10.2 mmHg.
In this model agreement of PRM and ACM with insufflator readings was comparable to IVP. As both methods may be advantageous regarding continuous straightforward measurement of IAP, the employment in further experimental and clinical investigations is suggested.
膀胱内压(IVP)测量被认为是评估腹内压(IAP)的金标准。然而,这种方法是间接的、不连续的,且有潜在感染风险,并且依赖于正常的膀胱功能。本研究评估了两种直接、连续测量IAP的新方法。
动物研究实验室的实验研究。
18只雄性家猪。
对6只动物分别进行18小时和24小时的二氧化碳气腹,使IAP升高至30 mmHg。另外6只动物作为对照。将一个压阻式(PRM)和一个气囊式(ACM)压力测量探头置于腹腔内,每1小时(PRM/ACM)或每2小时(IVP)测量一次IAP。计算注入器读数与IAP值之间的平均差异以及一致性界限(平均差异±2标准差)。
在施加压力的情况下,IVP和PRM仍显著低于注入器读数,而ACM值无差异。IVP、PRM和ACM的平均差异(及一致性界限)分别为4.5(-2.1至11.1 mmHg)、1.6(-8.0至11.2 mmHg)和0.5(-4.5至5.4 mmHg)。ACM值的平均测量间漂移为9.0±10.2 mmHg。
在该模型中,PRM和ACM与注入器读数的一致性与IVP相当。由于这两种方法在连续直接测量IAP方面可能具有优势,建议在进一步的实验和临床研究中应用。