IAH and sepsis - Adapted from a manuscript written by Dr. Wolfe, Kimball and Barbara McLean.
Introduction:
In the last 10 years
an explosion in interest regarding interventional therapies for
severe sepsis has occurred. The nidus for this interest was Dr.
Rivers landmark article demonstrating that early goal directed
therapy for sepsis provided a 16% improvement in survival.[1] Since
that publication a worldwide effort, the Surviving Sepsis campaign,
has implemented multiple therapeutic interventions into protocol
driven “bundles” of care.[2] Bundling therapeutic interventions is
felt to optimize outcome improvements for the severely septic
patient compared to single interventions alone.
Vigilant application of sepsis care bundles yield impressive results: survival improvements often exceed 15-20% while resource utilization is simultaneously decreased.[3] However, it is clear that aggressive early intervention is critical to achieve these survival improvements.[4] Failure to optimize tissue perfusion at an early point may lead to irreversible cellular ischemia, continued inflammatory stimulation and coagulation cascading as well as multiple organ failure secondary to necrosis and/or cellular apoptosis from the profound oxygen debt that occurs.
A dramatic increase in the recognition, understanding and management of another syndrome related to critical illness – intraabdominal hypertension and the abdominal compartment syndrome (IAH/ACS) - occurred at the same time as the evolution of sepsis care.[5] Despite the increase in awareness regarding IAH/ACS, many clinicians continue to have little understanding regarding incidence, clinical presentation or interventional therapies available for IAH/ACS.[6] Perhaps even less recognized is the profound inter-relationship between IAH/ACS and severe sepsis:
· Intra-abdominal hypertension is intrinsically linked to aggressive fluid resuscitation in patients with capillary endothelial permeability syndromes – exactly what occurs in severe sepsis resuscitation.[7-9]
· As volume resuscitation becomes a standard practice for sepsis care the prevalence of IAH/ACS may be increasing. In fact, Regueira et al reported that septic shock has the highest reported prevalence of IAH/ACS for any critically ill patient population.[10]
· IAH/ACS is a time dependent syndrome that if unrecognized and untreated leads to profound cellular ischemia and multiple organ failure mimicking that seen in severe sepsis but requiring additional interventions to prevent and/or avoid.[11-13]
· The pathophysiologic manifestations of sepsis and IAH/ACS are interrelated (Figure 1) and are so similar that IAH/ACS frequently goes unrecognized. Clinicians usually assume that the patients physiologic deteriorations are reflective of sepsis without recognizing that many of these complications may be compounded by sepsis induced IAH/ACS, a potentially preventable and treatable condition.[5, 14]
· IAH/ACS presence has a direct impact on central
venous pressure (CVP) and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP)
that if unrecognized can lead to inadequate fluid resuscitation
during sepsis care unless intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) is known
and the CVP/PAOP are corrected for that influence.[15-18]
This discussion will
review the inter-relationships between severe sepsis, sepsis
resuscitation protocols and IAH/ACS. It will then discuss the
clinical reasoning and outcomes data that suggest that patients who
undergo sepsis resuscitation should have IAP monitoring started
during the resuscitation phase and IAH/ACS interventions
implemented, if necessary, during the management-bundle phase.
Sepsis and IAH – Inter-related pathophysiologic processes
Patients suffering septic shock and receiving early goal directed therapy are almost perfect candidates for developing intra-abdominal hypertension. The pathophysiologic events that occur in septic shock lead to severe (splanchnic) hypoperfusion while simultaneously causing a massive systemic inflammatory response with cytokine release and immune hyperresponsiveness. This results in an increase in capillary permeability, intravascular volume leakage into the interstitium, hypovolemia and profound cellular ischemia. Early goal directed therapy provides some restoration of tissue blood flow through aggressive volume expansion; however, much of that fluid is eventually sequestered as edema in the extravascular (interstitial) spaces, which includes the bowel wall and mesentery. As the edema progresses, the volume within the abdominal compartment expands until the compliance threshold of the abdominal cavity is crossed and the abdominal wall can no longer easily expand. At this point intra-abdominal pressure rapidly rises with any further fluid sequestration, leading to intra-abdominal hypertension (See Figure 1).
Figure 1 - Sepsis and IAH have similar pathophysiologic
pathways (Click diagram to enlarge)
The resulting intra-abdominal hypertension leads to intra- and extra-abdominal organ dysfunction via two mechanisms: pressure induced vascular compression/hypoperfusion and immune mediated organ dysfunction. During the early phases of IAH, organ dysfunction is primarily related to pressure induced reductions in cardiac output and organ perfusion.[15, 19, 20] Rising IAP compresses the venous structures within the peritoneal and retroperitoneal space including the vena cava.[15] It also pushes the diaphragms cephalad leading to reduced thoracic volumes, atelectasis and elevated intrathoracic pressure.[19] (See figure 2) The end result is reduced preload, reduced cardiac output, increased SVR, increased intrathoracic pressure with higher peak and plateau pressures, atelectasis, worsening oxygenation and ventilation, decreasing urine production, tissue hypoperfusion and worsening cellular hypoxia. These events begin with IAP levels as low as 8-12 mmHg and are profoundly worsened as the IAP continues to rise.
Figure 2: Intraabdominal hypertension impact on organs (Click to enlarge)
(Click here for 8 MB high resolution poster of diagram)
Elevated
intraabdominal pressure also causes immune and inflammatory effects
that can result in progressive organ failure. An emerging body of
evidence suggests that untreated intra-abdominal hypertension may
act as the second insult in the two-event model of multiple organ
failure (MOF).[9, 12, 13, 21, 22] This model postulates that an
initial insult causing cellular ischemia (such as what occurs in the
syndrome of septic shock) primes the patients immune system for an
exaggerated response to any secondary insult.[23] The second insult,
in the form of IAH induced recurrent ischemia, can lead to immune
hyperresponsiveness and increased inflammatory mediator release.
Rezende-Neto el
al found that IAH causes elevated levels of pro-inflammatory
cytokines (tumor necrosis factor, and interleukins IL-6 and IL-1) as
well a lung myeloperoxidase (MPO) and a 3-fold increase in
inflammatory neutrophil expression in an animal model.[12, 13] More
recently investigators have shown a direct link to intraabdominal
pressure increases, inflammatory mediator levels and organ injury in
sepsis cases.[21, 22]
Al-Bahrani noted
patients with abdominal sepsis to have a 75% and 25% rate of IAH and
ACS respectively.[21] Those patients with IAH/ACS had much higher
plasma endotoxin levels that resolved as the IAP was reduced.
Kubiak’s et al
provide data from a trauma/sepsis model that show massive increases
in inflammatory mediators within the gut milieu as well as
development of intraabdominal hypertension.[22] These mediators and
the resulting IAH can be attenuated by negative pressure removal of
bowel fluid. The treatment leads to reduced IAP, reduced
inflammatory mediators in the bowel as well as in the circulation,
and dramatic improvements in the histopathology of the lung, liver
and kidney. (see photos below). The authors conclude that sepsis can
result in inflammatory ascites and intraabdominal hypertension which
may perpetuate organ injury. By removing this ascites the cycle can
be broken and reduced organ injury may occur.
Kubiak et al 2010: Impact of sepsis/IAH induced cytokines on tissue if passively treated vs actively treated
Photos: Lung and intestinal injury reduced with cytokine removal from gut
Click on photos
to enlarge
Other
investigators also note increases in inflammatory mediators as well
as bacterial translocation across the bowel wall during the ischemic
insult that occurs with increased intra-abdominal pressure.[24, 25]
Left unchecked and untreated this
secondary insult (IAH) combined with the underlying disease entity
lead to a hyper-inflammatory immune response
with a high incidence of multiple organ
dysfunction and death.
Incidence of IAH/ACS in septic shock
The increasing focus on severe sepsis is also leading to more recognition of the complications of massive fluid resuscitation in the form of IAH/ACS. Regueira et al found a 51% incidence of intra-abdominal pressure over 20 mmHg in patients resuscitated from septic shock.[10] Daugherty et al noted an 85% incidence of IAH (IAP ³ 12 mmHg) and a 30% incidence of abdominal compartment syndrome (defined as IAP ³ 20 mmHg with organ dysfunction) in their aggressively fluid resuscitated septic shock population.[8] McBeth noted similar data with 87% of patients with severe sepsis having IAH and 32% suffering with pressures > 20 mmHg.[52] Those sepsis patients with IAH had more organ failure, more renal replacement therapy, longer ICU stays and higher mortaility. Other investigators report IAH/ACS rates of 40-50% in severe sepsis.[7, 26, 27]
IAH/ACS impact on
septic shock monitoring endpoints: CVP, ScvO2, Urine
output
The frequency with which IAH/ACS develops in sepsis has important clinical ramifications. One concern regards the impact of IAH on sepsis resuscitation endpoints. Current surviving sepsis guidelines emphasize the importance of traditional end-expiratory CVP of 12 mmHg in combination with a mixed central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) of 70% or greater. Once the CVP level is achieved, fluid resuscitation is suspended. If the oxygenation endpoint has not been met, packed red blood cells or inotropic support is implemented.[1, 2] In addition, if the patient’s mean arterial pressure is unacceptable (<65 mmHg) a vasopressor may be added to the mix. However, end-expiratory CVP overestimates fluid status in patients suffering from IAH because the intra-abdominal pressure is transduced across the diaphragm onto the catheter.[15-18] Failure to recognize the conductance of intra-abdominal pressure onto the CVP measurement may lead to under resuscitation with fluid and potentially worsen cellular ischemia. At the same time, over-vigorous fluid administration may complicate tissue ischemia / reperfusion leading to more edema, ascites and higher levels of IAP. Multiple authors now recommend either that traditional end-expiratory CVP be corrected for IAP to reduce the possibility of inadequate fluid administration or that alternate measurements of fluid status such as volumetric indices be used in any patient with IAH.[15-18] Even newer hemodynamic monitoring techniques such as SVV and PPV are impacted by elevated intraabdominal pressure, making their interpretation and choice of thresholds for fluid management dependent on simultaneous insight into the patients IAP.[28, 29] (Click here for more information on IAP impact on hemodynamic parameters)
Failure to detect splanchnic ischemia (a complication of IAH) is also a problem when indirect measures of global oxygen transport such as ScvO2 and serum lactate are used in sepsis evaluation. Because global oxygen delivery indicators reflect total body oxygen consumption, early ischemia may not dramatically affect the measurements. Regional hypoperfusion is often not recognized until very late in the disease state.[30-32] On the other hand, regional perfusion indicators such as tonometry or near infrared spectroscopy and broad splanchnic indicators of hypoperfusion such as IAP will detect ischemia (or the result of ischemia) in the splanchnic bed earlier in the clinical course- before it is detectable with global indicators.[32-35] These findings suggest that a very inexpensive, non-invasive piece of clinical data - intra-abdominal pressure monitoring - provides an earlier warning regarding splanchnic hypoperfusion risk before mixed central venous oxygen saturation, lactic acid and other global indicators are measurably altered. Until more direct methods such as tonometry and near infrared spectroscopy are perfected, IAP monitoring should be considered as an early indicator of splanchnic hypoperfusion in these high risk patients.[32, 34, 35]
Commonly utilized renal perfusion measurements
such as urine output, blood urea nitrogen and creatinine are also
adversely impacted by IAH.[20, 36] Abnormalities in these parameters
might be misinterpreted as pre-renal azotemia when in reality they
may occur due to direct visceral compression and reduced cardiac
output due to IAH/ACS. In this situation, further fluid
administration could worsen the problem while interventions directed
towards reducing IAP may resolve or partially limit the issue.[5,
37-41]
This data is not
meant to discourage the use of CVP, ScvO2 or urine output. Each
piece of information when used with others, e.g. vital signs, urine
output, CVP, ScvO2, lactate, and intra-abdominal pressure more
adequately complete the big picture, improve patient care and
support the clinician in their decision making process.
Sepsis and IAH: Resource
consumption and outcomes
Too date there are no outcomes trials specifically looking at sepsis patients with IAH to determine whether interventions impact final outcome. However, there does exist a large body of data in broadly based critical care populations (including a substantial percentage of severe sepsis patients) which demonstrates that the presence of IAH worsens patients outcomes and increases resource consumption.[7, 8, 27, 36, 42] Additional data demonstrates that aggressive protocol driven interventions designed to treat IAH can improve outcomes without increasing resource utilization.[37, 43-47] Malbrain et al, found that even "mild" elevations of IAP (>12 mmHg) in a mixed population of ICU patients (1/3 suffered severe sepsis) was an independent risk factor for organ dysfunction and mortality (39% vs 22%).[7] Ejike et al found a similar but more pronounced mortality link in children (33% vs 2.4%) with an associated increase in ICU length of stay (13 days vs 6 days).[42] Sugrue et al showed elevated IAP (over 18 mm Hg) was an independent predictor of renal failure, ranking up with hypotension, age and sepsis in a large cohort of surgical ICU patients.[36] Even though their study was not powered to detect outcome differences, Daugherty et al noted that the majority of patients in their medical ICU population who developed IAH were patients with septic shock and that patients with IAH had a higher mortality (70% vs 50%, p=NS) and longer ICU length of stay (21 day vs 12 day, p=NS).[8] Reintam et al noted that 45% of their severe sepsis population developed IAH and that IAH presence was a marker for higher mortality compared to those septic patients who did not develop IAH (sepsis plus IAH mortality 50%, sepsis without IAH mortality 19%; OR 4.15, 95% CI 1.87-9.26). Multiple other studies show correlations between morbidity, mortality and resource utilization in patients with IAH/ACS.[46, 48, 49]
Given the clear link
between elevated IAP and mortality, the important question that
remains is whether or not intervention will improve outcome for an
acceptable cost. While
urgent, aggressive treatment for other compartment syndromes
(increased intra-cranial pressure, tension pneumothorax, pericardial
tamponade, extremity compartment syndrome) is standard of care, most
intensive care practitioners fail to treat intra-abdominal
hypertension and the abdominal compartment syndrome with the same
urgency if at all.[6] Because this syndrome leads to profound
cellular ischemia and inflammation it is likely that optimal outcome
improvements can only be recognized if the problem is prevented or
at the very least identified early by utilizing monitoring and
proactive interventions. Emerging evidence suggests such an early,
proactive approach does result in better patient outcomes. Almost a
decade ago
Ivatury et al
showed that prophylactic interventions (temporary abdominal closure)
to reduce IAH/ACS in major trauma cases led to dramatic outcome
improvement (ACS reduction from 52% to 22%, death reduction from 36%
to 11%).[43] The technique of
temporary abdominal closure to prevent abdominal compartment
syndrome is now a standard surgical approach and leads to clear
outcome improvements in high risk trauma, pancreatitis and vascular
surgical populations.[43, 44, 50]
Joseph et al noted that IAP
monitoring and treatment with laparotomy was instrumental in
improving outcome in their neurotrauma/stroke patients with elevated
intra-cranial pressure. Today, Joseph’s group now advocates
aggressive IAP monitoring and interventions to prevent IAP elevation
over 20 mm Hg in all patients with elevated intra-cranial
pressure.[51] In the severe pancreatitis population, Oda et al
demonstrated that aggressive IAP monitoring with implementation of
early renal replacement therapy once IAP increased to more than 15
mm Hg resulted in a reduction in their traditional mortality (>30%
down to 6%).[37] Sun et al, in a prospective randomized trial, were
able to cut hospital length of stay in half and reduced pancreatitis
mortality from 20% to 10% using IAP monitoring to guide
interventional strategies.[45]
Cheatham et al noted that protocol driven interventions which
combine both early medical therapy with aggressive surgical
interventions result in improvements in outcomes without increasing
hospital resource utilization.[46] Cheatham’s group introduced an
evidence-based algorithm to guide the care of their patients with
severe IAH/ACS, demonstrating a mortality decrease from 49% to 29%
and a reduction in hospital length of stay from 29 day to 18
days.[46] They conclude that evidence based management strategies
for IAH/ACS lead to significant improvements in survival with
earlier return to normal function. They also point out that these
outcome improvements come with no added resource utilization and
recommend that all institutions adopt an evidence based treatment
protocol (http://www.wsacs.org/algorithms.php).
In systems where ICU beds are at a premium, implementation of
protocol driven IAP monitoring/intervention may provide a method of
decreasing length of stay, assist in more rapid bed turnover and
less expenditures.
Should intra-abdominal pressure
monitoring occur in severe sepsis?
Though it is clear that severe sepsis and septic shock are major risk factors for IAH/ACS, the data evaluating interventional therapy to improve outcomes in sepsis are scarce. However, the preponderance of circumstantial evidence suggests it should be considered. On initial presentation septic shock patients are volume depleted and will be unlikely to have IAH/ACS. However, as EGDT is implemented and patients are fluid resuscitated their intra-vascular and interstitial fluids are in a state of rapid fluctuation creating an ever-changing hemodynamic picture. Because end-expiratory CVP is the primary measurement used in EGDT to assess fluid status the accuracy of CVP is critical to ensure adequate but not over-zealous fluid administration. Unfortunately, end-expiratory CVP overestimates fluid status in patients suffering from IAH.[15] Furthermore, IAH causes splanchnic hypoperfusion long before lactate elevation or ScvO2 changes are apparent and may further compromise renal function independent of the patients’ fluid status.[32-35] Last but not least – IAH/ACS is very common in resuscitated sepsis patients. In fact, the highest reported incidence of IAH/ACS occurs in the septic shock population.[8, 10, 52] For these reasons early IAP measurements and trending beginning during the resuscitation phase and continuing during the management phase of sepsis care may be beneficial. By utilizing IAP in conjunction with more traditional measures the clinician can more accurately interpret fluid status in relationship to the CVP, becoming aware of the confounding physiologic impact of IAP on potential organ dysfunctions and may be given an early warning that splanchnic perfusion is being compromised. This will allow for more timely medical interventions to temporize or eliminate IAH/ACS and facilitate a more aggressive resuscitation. Fortunately, multiple non-surgical interventions are available and their early implementation can reduce IAP and prevent progression to ACS.[5] By failing to monitor IAP early in the hospital course, profound and prolonged IAP elevations may occur causing delayed recognition of the problem, prolonging cellular ischemia and oxygen debt and possibly preventing the success of early interventions that may temporize or stop progression of IAH.
Summary:
Patients’ resuscitated from severe sepsis and septic shock are at high risk for the development of IAH/ACS, resulting in a very high incidence of the syndrome. Furthermore, elevated intra-abdominal pressure profoundly influences commonly used septic shock resuscitation endpoints such as CVP (falsely elevated), SCV02, SVV and urine output (markedly decreased). Failure to adjust for the impact of IAP on these endpoints may negatively impact resuscitation decisions. Finally, in other critically ill patient populations, utilization of IAP to direct therapy early in their care results in improved outcomes and reduced resource consumption. This data combined with the well described organ dysfunction and tissue ischemia found in patients with IAH/ACS suggest that it is time to consider routine IAP monitoring as a primary measurement component of the bundled care in severely septic patients. At the very minimum, this information provides a hypothesis deserving of further investigation into volume resuscitation effects as well as the impact of early IAP monitoring and therapy on the outcome of severely septic patients.
Article for download:
References:
1.
Rivers, E., et al.,
Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and
septic shock. N Engl J Med, 2001.
345(19): p. 1368-77.
2.
Dellinger, R.P., et al.,
Surviving Sepsis Campaign:
International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic
shock: 2008. Intensive Care Med, 2007.
3.
Shorr, A.F., et al.,
Economic implications of an evidence-based sepsis protocol: can we
improve outcomes and lower costs? Crit Care Med, 2007.
35(5): p. 1257-62.
4.
Gattinoni, L., et al.,
A trial of goal-oriented hemodynamic therapy in critically ill
patients. SvO2 Collaborative Group. N Engl J Med, 1995.
333(16): p. 1025-32.
5.
Cheatham, M.L., et al.,
Results from the International Conference of Experts on
Intra-abdominal Hypertension and Abdominal Compartment Syndrome. II.
Recommendations. Intensive Care Med, 2007.
33(6): p. 951-62.
6.
Kimball, E.J., et al.,
Survey of intensive care physicians on the recognition and
management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment
syndrome. Crit Care Med, 2006.
34(9): p. 2340-8.
7.
Malbrain, M.L.N.G., et al.,
Incidence and prognosis of
intraabdominal hypertension in a mixed population of critically ill
patients: a multiple-center epidemiological study. Crit Care
Med, 2005. 33(2): p.
315-22.
8.
Daugherty, E.L., et al.,
Abdominal compartment syndrome
is common in medical intensive care unit patients receiving
large-volume resuscitation. J Intensive Care Med, 2007.
22(5): p. 294-9.
9.
Balogh, Z., et al.,
Both primary and secondary abdominal compartment syndrome can be
predicted early and are harbingers of multiple organ failure. J
Trauma, 2003. 54(5): p.
848-59.
10.
Regueira, T., et al.,
Intraabdominal hypertension in patients with septic shock. Am
Surg, 2007. 73(9): p.
865-70.
11.
Balogh, Z., et al.,
Abdominal compartment syndrome: the cause or effect of postinjury
multiple organ failure. Shock, 2003.
20(6): p. 483-92.
12.
Rezende-Neto, J.B., et al.,
The abdominal compartment
syndrome as a second insult during systemic neutrophil priming
provokes multiple organ injury. Shock, 2003.
20(4): p. 303-8.
13.
Rezende-Neto, J.B., et al.,
Systemic inflammatory response
secondary to abdominal compartment syndrome: stage for multiple
organ failure. J Trauma, 2002.
53(6): p. 1121-8.
14.
Schulman, C.I., Abdominal Compartment Syndrome Mimicking Sepsis. Infect Med, 2000.
17(11): p. 746-757.
15.
Cheatham, M.L. and M.L. Malbrain,
Cardiovascular implications of
abdominal compartment syndrome. Acta Clin Belg Suppl, 2007(1):
p. 98-112.
16.
Valenza, F., et al.,
Static and dynamic components of esophageal and central venous
pressure during intra-abdominal hypertension. Crit Care Med,
2007. 35(6): p. 1575-81.
17.
Qureshi, A.S., R.S. Shapiro, and J.W. Leatherman,
Use of bladder pressure to
correct for the effect of expiratory muscle activity on central
venous pressure. Intensive Care Med, 2007.
33(11): p. 1907-12.
18.
Cheatham, M.L., It is time to pay attention--now more than ever! Crit Care Med,
2007. 35(6): p. 1629-30.
19.
Pelosi, P., M. Quintel, and M.L. Malbrain,
Effect of intra-abdominal
pressure on respiratory mechanics. Acta Clin Belg Suppl,
2007(1): p. 78-88.
20.
De laet, I., et al., Renal implications of increased intra-abdominal pressure: are the
kidneys the canary for abdominal hypertension? Acta Clin Belg
Suppl, 2007(1): p. 119-30.
21.
Al-Bahrani, A.Z., et al.,
Gut barrier dysfunction in
critically ill surgical patients with abdominal compartment
syndrome. Pancreas, 2010.
39(7): p. 1064-9.
22.
Kubiak, B.D., et al.,
Peritoneal Negative Pressure Therapy Prevents Multiple Organ Injury
in a Chronic Porcine Sepsis and Ischemia/Reperfusion Model.
Shock, 2010.
23.
Moore, F.A., E.E. Moore, and R.A. Read,
Postinjury multiple organ
failure: role of extrathoracic injury and sepsis in adult
respiratory distress syndrome. New Horizons, 1993.
1(4): p. 538-49.
24.
Diebel, L.N., S.A. Dulchavsky, and W.J. Brown,
Splanchnic ischemia and
bacterial translocation in the abdominal compartment syndrome. J
Trauma, 1997. 43(5): p.
852-5.
25.
Eleftheriadis, E., et al.,
Gut ischemia, oxidative
stress, and bacterial translocation in elevated abdominal pressure
in rats. World J Surg, 1996.
20(1): p. 11-6.
26.
Efstathiou, E., et al.,
Intra-abdominal pressure monitoring in septic patients.
Intensive Care Medicine, 2005.
31, Supplement 1(131): p. S183, Abstract 703.
27.
Reintam, A., et al.,
Intra-abdominal hypertension as a risk factor of death in patients
with severe sepsis or septic shock. Critical Care, 2007.
11 (Suppl 2): p. Abstract
P319.
28.
Renner, J., et al.,
Influence of increased intra-abdominal pressure on fluid
responsiveness predicted by pulse pressure variation and stroke
volume variation in a porcine model. Crit Care Med, 2009.
37(2): p. 650-8.
29.
Malbrain, M.L. and I. de Laet,
Functional hemodynamics and
increased intra-abdominal pressure: same thresholds for different
conditions ...? Crit Care Med, 2009.
37(2): p. 781-3.
30.
Koch, T., S. Geiger, and M.J. Ragaller,
Monitoring of organ
dysfunction in sepsis/systemic inflammatory response syndrome: novel
strategies. J Am Soc Nephrol, 2001.
12 Suppl 17: p. S53-9.
31.
Marik, P.E., Sublingual capnometry: a non-invasive measure of microcirculatory
dysfunction and tissue hypoxia. Physiol Meas, 2006.
27(7): p. R37-47.
32.
Schwarte, L.A., et al.,
Moderate increase in intraabdominal pressure attenuates gastric
mucosal oxygen saturation in patients undergoing laparoscopy.
Anesthesiology, 2004. 100(5):
p. 1081-7.
33.
Sakka, S.G., Indocyanine green plasma disappearance rate as an indicator of hepato-splanchnic
ischemia during abdominal compartment syndrome. Anesth Analg,
2007. 104(4): p. 1003-4.
34.
Cheatham, M.L., Is the canary still singing? Crit Care Med, 2007.
35(1): p. 320-1.
35.
Sugrue, M., et al., Intraabdominal pressure and gastric intramucosal pH: is there an
association? World J Surg, 1996.
20(8): p. 988-91.
36.
Sugrue, M., et al., Intra-abdominal hypertension is an independent cause of postoperative
renal impairment. Arch Surg, 1999.
134(10): p. 1082-5.
37.
Oda, S., et al., Management of Intra-abdominal Hypertension in Patients With Severe Acute
Pancreatitis With Continuous Hemodiafiltration Using a Polymethyl
Methacrylate Membrane Hemofilter. Ther Apher Dial, 2005.
9(4): p. 355-61.
38.
De Waele, J.J., et al.,
A role for muscle relaxation in patients with abdominal compartment
syndrome? Intensive Care Med, 2003.
29(2): p. 332.
39.
Kula, R., et al., A role for negative fluid balance in septic patients with abdominal
compartment syndrome? Intensive Care Med, 2004.
30(11): p. 2138-9.
40.
Majumdar, A., Sepsis-induced acute kidney injury. Indian J Crit Care Med, 2010.
14(1): p. 14-21.
41.
Peng, Z.Y., et al., Effects of norepinephrine during intra-abdominal hypertension on renal
blood flow in bacteremic dogs. Crit Care Med, 2008.
36(3): p. 834-41.
42.
Ejike, J.C., et al., Outcomes of children with abdominal compartment syndrome. Acta Clin
Belg Suppl, 2007(1): p. 141-8.
43.
Ivatury, R.R., et al.,
Intra-abdominal hypertension after life-threatening penetrating
abdominal trauma: prophylaxis, incidence, and clinical relevance to
gastric mucosal pH and abdominal compartment syndrome. J Trauma,
1998. 44(6): p. 1016-21.
44.
Rasmussen, T.E., et al.,
Early abdominal closure with
mesh reduces multiple organ failure after ruptured abdominal aortic
aneurysm repair: guidelines from a 10-year case-control study. J
Vasc Surg, 2002. 35(2):
p. 246-53.
45.
Sun, Z.X., H.R. Huang, and H. Zhou,
Indwelling catheter and
conservative measures in the treatment of abdominal compartment
syndrome in fulminant acute pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol,
2006. 12(31): p. 5068-70.
46.
Cheatham, M.L. and K. Safcsak,
Is the evolving management of
intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome
improving survival? Crit Care Med, 2010.
38(2): p. 402-7.
47.
Batacchi, S., et al.,
Vacuum-assisted closure device enhances recovery of critically ill
patients following emergency surgical procedures. Crit Care,
2009. 13(6): p. R194.
48.
Raeburn, C.D., et al.,
The abdominal compartment syndrome is a morbid complication of
postinjury damage control surgery. Am J Surg, 2001.
182(6): p. 542-6.
49.
Pupelis, G., et al.,
Clinical significance of increased intraabdominal pressure in severe
acute pancreatitis. Acta Chir Belg, 2002.
102(2): p. 71-4.
50.
Leppaniemi, A., K. Johansson, and J.J. De Waele,
Abdominal compartment syndrome
and acute pancreatitis. Acta Clin Belg Suppl, 2007(1): p. 131-5.
51.
Joseph, D.K., et al.,
Decompressive laparotomy to treat intractable intracranial
hypertension after traumatic brain injury. J Trauma, 2004.
57(4): p. 687-95.