Purpose
To update the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (WSACS) consensus definitions and management statements relating to intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and the abdominal ...compartment syndrome (ACS).
Methods
We conducted systematic or structured reviews to identify relevant studies relating to IAH or ACS. Updated consensus definitions and management statements were then derived using a modified Delphi method and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines, respectively. Quality of evidence was graded from high (A) to very low (D) and management statements from strong RECOMMENDATIONS (desirable effects clearly outweigh potential undesirable ones) to weaker SUGGESTIONS (potential risks and benefits of the intervention are less clear).
Results
In addition to reviewing the consensus definitions proposed in 2006, the WSACS defined the open abdomen, lateralization of the abdominal musculature, polycompartment syndrome, and abdominal compliance, and proposed an open abdomen classification system. RECOMMENDATIONS included intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurement, avoidance of sustained IAH, protocolized IAP monitoring and management, decompressive laparotomy for overt ACS, and negative pressure wound therapy and efforts to achieve same-hospital-stay fascial closure among patients with an open abdomen. SUGGESTIONS included use of medical therapies and percutaneous catheter drainage for treatment of IAH/ACS, considering the association between body position and IAP, attempts to avoid a positive fluid balance after initial patient resuscitation, use of enhanced ratios of plasma to red blood cells and prophylactic open abdominal strategies, and avoidance of routine early biologic mesh use among patients with open abdominal wounds. NO RECOMMENDATIONS were possible regarding monitoring of abdominal perfusion pressure or the use of diuretics, renal replacement therapies, albumin, or acute component-parts separation.
Conclusion
Although IAH and ACS are common and frequently associated with poor outcomes, the overall quality of evidence available to guide development of RECOMMENDATIONS was generally low. Appropriately designed intervention trials are urgently needed for patients with IAH and ACS.
Purpose
Acute gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction and failure have been increasingly recognized in critically ill patients. The variety of definitions proposed in the past has led to confusion and ...difficulty in comparing one study to another. An international working group convened to standardize the definitions for acute GI failure and GI symptoms and to review the therapeutic options.
Methods
The Working Group on Abdominal Problems (WGAP) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) developed the definitions for GI dysfunction in intensive care patients on the basis of the available evidence and current understanding of the pathophysiology.
Results
Definitions for acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) with its four grades of severity, as well as for feeding intolerance syndrome and GI symptoms (e.g. vomiting, diarrhoea, paralysis, high gastric residual volumes) are proposed. AGI is a malfunctioning of the GI tract in intensive care patients due to their acute illness. AGI grade I = increased risk of developing GI dysfunction or failure (a self-limiting condition); AGI grade II = GI dysfunction (a condition that requires interventions); AGI grade III = GI failure (GI function cannot be restored with interventions); AGI grade IV = dramatically manifesting GI failure (a condition that is immediately life-threatening). Current evidence and expert opinions regarding treatment of acute GI dysfunction are provided.
Conclusions
State-of-the-art definitions for GI dysfunction with gradation as well as management recommendations are proposed on the basis of current medical evidence and expert opinion. The WGAP recommends using these definitions for clinical and research purposes.
Purpose
To provide evidence-based guidelines for early enteral nutrition (EEN) during critical illness.
Methods
We aimed to compare EEN vs. early parenteral nutrition (PN) and vs. delayed EN. We ...defined “early” EN as EN started within 48 h independent of type or amount. We listed, a priori, conditions in which EN is often delayed, and performed systematic reviews in 24 such subtopics. If sufficient evidence was available, we performed meta-analyses; if not, we qualitatively summarized the evidence and based our recommendations on expert opinion. We used the GRADE approach for guideline development. The final recommendations were compiled via Delphi rounds.
Results
We formulated 17 recommendations favouring initiation of EEN and seven recommendations favouring delaying EN. We performed five meta-analyses: in unselected critically ill patients, and specifically in traumatic brain injury, severe acute pancreatitis, gastrointestinal (GI) surgery and abdominal trauma. EEN reduced infectious complications in unselected critically ill patients, in patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and after GI surgery. We did not detect any evidence of superiority for early PN or delayed EN over EEN. All recommendations are weak because of the low quality of evidence, with several based only on expert opinion.
Conclusions
We suggest using EEN in the majority of critically ill under certain precautions. In the absence of evidence, we suggest delaying EN in critically ill patients with uncontrolled shock, uncontrolled hypoxaemia and acidosis, uncontrolled upper GI bleeding, gastric aspirate >500 ml/6 h, bowel ischaemia, bowel obstruction, abdominal compartment syndrome, and high-output fistula without distal feeding access.
In patients with septic shock, the administration of fluids during initial hemodynamic resuscitation remains a major therapeutic challenge. We are faced with many open questions regarding the type, ...dose and timing of intravenous fluid administration. There are only four major indications for intravenous fluid administration: aside from resuscitation, intravenous fluids have many other uses including maintenance and replacement of total body water and electrolytes, as carriers for medications and for parenteral nutrition. In this paradigm-shifting review, we discuss different fluid management strategies including early adequate goal-directed fluid management, late conservative fluid management and late goal-directed fluid removal. In addition, we expand on the concept of the “four D’s” of fluid therapy, namely drug, dosing, duration and de-escalation. During the treatment of patients with septic shock, four phases of fluid therapy should be considered in order to provide answers to four basic questions. These four phases are the resuscitation phase, the optimization phase, the stabilization phase and the evacuation phase. The four questions are “When to start intravenous fluids?”, “When to stop intravenous fluids?”, “When to start de-resuscitation or active fluid removal?” and finally “When to stop de-resuscitation?” In analogy to the way we handle antibiotics in critically ill patients, it is time for fluid stewardship.
Purpose
The study aimed to develop a gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction score predicting 28-day mortality for adult patients needing mechanical ventilation (MV).
Methods
377 adult patients from 40 ...ICUs with expected duration of MV for at least 6 h were prospectively studied. Predefined GI symptoms, intra-abdominal pressures (IAP), feeding details, organ dysfunction and treatment were documented on days 1, 2, 4 and 7.
Results
The number of simultaneous GI symptoms was higher in nonsurvivors on each day. Absent bowel sounds and GI bleeding were the symptoms most significantly associated with mortality. None of the GI symptoms alone was an independent predictor of mortality, but gastrointestinal failure (GIF)—defined as three or more GI symptoms—on day 1 in ICU was independently associated with a threefold increased risk of mortality. During the first week in ICU, GIF occurred in 24 patients (6.4 %) and was associated with higher 28-day mortality (62.5 vs. 28.9 %,
P
= 0.001). Adding the created subscore for GI dysfunction (based on the number of GI symptoms) to SOFA score did not improve mortality prediction (day 1 AUROC 0.706 95 % CI 0.647–0.766 versus 0.703 95 % CI 0.643–0.762 in SOFA score alone).
Conclusions
An increasing number of GI symptoms independently predicts 28 day mortality with moderate accuracy. However, it was not possible to develop a GI dysfunction score, improving the performance of the SOFA score either due to data set limitations, definition problems, or possibly indicating that GI dysfunction is often secondary and not the primary cause of other organ failure.
The prediction of fluid responsiveness Monnet, Xavier; Malbrain, Manu L. N. G.; Pinsky, Michael R.
Intensive care medicine,
01/2023, Letnik:
49, Številka:
1
Journal Article
Intravenous fluid management of trauma patients is fraught with complex decisions that are often complicated by coagulopathy and blood loss. This review discusses the fluid management in trauma ...patients from the perspective of the developing world. In addition, the article describes an approach to specific circumstances in trauma fluid decision-making and provides recommendations for the resource-limited environment.
Intravenous fluid administration should be considered as any other pharmacological prescription. There are three main indications: resuscitation, replacement, and maintenance. Moreover, the impact of ...fluid administration as drug diluent or to preserve catheter patency, i.e., fluid creep, should also be considered. As for antibiotics, intravenous fluid administration should follow the four Ds: drug, dosing, duration, de-escalation. Among crystalloids, balanced solutions limit acid–base alterations and chloride load and should be preferred, as this likely prevents renal dysfunction. Among colloids, albumin, the only available natural colloid, may have beneficial effects. The last decade has seen growing interest in the potential harms related to fluid overloading. In the perioperative setting, appropriate fluid management that maintains adequate organ perfusion while limiting fluid administration should represent the standard of care. Protocols including a restrictive continuous fluid administration alongside bolus administration to achieve hemodynamic targets have been proposed. A similar approach should be considered also for critically ill patients, in whom increased endothelial permeability makes this strategy more relevant. Active de-escalation protocols may be necessary in a later phase. The R.O.S.E. conceptual model (Resuscitation, Optimization, Stabilization, Evacuation) summarizes accurately a dynamic approach to fluid therapy, maximizing benefits and minimizing harms. Even in specific categories of critically ill patients, i.e., with trauma or burns, fluid therapy should be carefully applied, considering the importance of their specific aims; maintaining peripheral oxygen delivery, while avoiding the consequences of fluid overload.
This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2020. Other selected articles can be found online at ...https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2020. Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901.
PDF
