Department Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ziekenhuis Oost Limburg, Genk, Belgium.
Department Medicine and Life Sciences, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.
J Clin Monit Comput. 2023 Feb;37(1):287-296. doi: 10.1007/s10877-022-00890-6. Epub 2022 Jul 30.
The gold standard to measure intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) is intra-vesical measurement via the urinary bladder. However, this technique is restricted in ambulatory settings because of the risk of iatrogenic urinary tract infections. Rectal IAP measurements (IAP) may overcome these limitations, but requires validation. This validation study compares the IAP technique against gold standard intra-vesical IAP measurements (IAP). IAP using an air-filled balloon catheter and IAP using Foley Manometer Low Volume were measured simultaneously in sedated and ventilated patients. Measurements were performed twice in different positions (supine and HOB 45° elevated head of bed) and with an external abdominal pressure belt. Sixteen patients were included. Seven were not eligible for analysis due to unreliable IAP values. IAP was significantly higher than IAP for all body positions (p < 0.01) and the correlation between IAP and IAP was poor and not significant in each position (p ≥ 0.25, R < 0.6, Lin's CCC < 0.8, bias - 8.1 mmHg and precision of 5.6 mmHg with large limits of agreement between - 19 to 2.9 mmHg, high percentage error 67.3%, and low concordance 86.2%). Repeatability of IAP was not reliable (R = 0.539, p = 0.315). For both techniques, measurements with the external abdominal pressure belt were significantly higher compared to those without (p < 0.03). IAP has important shortcomings making IAP estimation using a rectal catheter unfeasible because the numbers cannot be trusted nor validated.
测量腹腔内压 (IAP) 的金标准是通过膀胱进行的膀胱内测量。然而,由于医源性尿路感染的风险,这种技术在非卧床环境中受到限制。直肠 IAP 测量 (IAP) 可能克服这些限制,但需要验证。这项验证研究将 IAP 技术与金标准的膀胱内 IAP 测量 (IAP) 进行了比较。在镇静和通气的患者中,同时使用充满空气的球囊导管和 Foley 测压计低容量测量 IAP。在不同的体位 (仰卧位和 HOB 45°抬高床头位) 和使用外部腹部压力带下,分别进行了两次测量。共纳入 16 名患者。由于 IAP 值不可靠,有 7 名患者不符合分析条件。在所有体位下,IAP 均显著高于 IAP(p<0.01),并且在每个体位下,IAP 与 IAP 之间的相关性较差且无统计学意义(p≥0.25,R<0.6,Lin 的 CCC<0.8,偏差为 8.1mmHg,精度为 5.6mmHg,一致性界限为 -19 至 2.9mmHg,高百分比误差 67.3%,低一致性 86.2%)。IAP 的重复性不可靠(R=0.539,p=0.315)。对于这两种技术,使用外部腹部压力带的测量值明显高于不使用的测量值(p<0.03)。IAP 存在重要的缺陷,使得使用直肠导管估计 IAP 不可行,因为无法信任或验证这些数据。