scholarly journals Pressure Measurement Techniques for Abdominal Hypertension: Conclusions from an Experimental Model

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sascha Santosh Chopra ◽  
Stefan Wolf ◽  
Veit Rohde ◽  
Florian Baptist Freimann
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Measurement Techniques ◽  
Indirect Measurement ◽  
Abdominal Pressure ◽  
Abdominal Hypertension ◽  
Direct Pressure ◽  
Missed Diagnosis ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Indispensable Tool

Introduction. Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurement is an indispensable tool for the diagnosis of abdominal hypertension. Different techniques have been described in the literature and applied in the clinical setting.Methods. A porcine model was created to simulate an abdominal compartment syndrome ranging from baseline IAP to 30 mmHg. Three different measurement techniques were applied, comprising telemetric piezoresistive probes at two different sites (epigastric and pelvic) for direct pressure measurement and intragastric and intravesical probes for indirect measurement.Results. The mean difference between the invasive IAP measurements using telemetric pressure probes and the IVP measurements was −0.58 mmHg. The bias between the invasive IAP measurements and the IGP measurements was 3.8 mmHg. Compared to the realistic results of the intraperitoneal and intravesical measurements, the intragastric data showed a strong tendency towards decreased values. The hydrostatic character of the IAP was eliminated at high-pressure levels.Conclusion. We conclude that intragastric pressure measurement is potentially hazardous and might lead to inaccurately low intra-abdominal pressure values. This may result in missed diagnosis of elevated abdominal pressure or even ACS. The intravesical measurements showed the most accurate values during baseline pressure and both high-pressure plateaus.

Intraperitoneal Pressure and Intra-Abdominal Pressure: Are they the Same?

2011 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdullah Al-Hwiesh ◽  
Sameer Al-Mueilo ◽  
Ibrahiem Saeed ◽  
Fahd A. Al-Muhanna
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Heart Association ◽  
Abdominal Pressure ◽  
Intraperitoneal Pressure ◽  
Direct Technique ◽  
Abdominal Hypertension ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Indirect Technique ◽  
Stage Renal Disease

BackgroundIn peritoneal dialysis (PD), a standard therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), the effects of using the peritoneum as an exchange membrane and of dialysate dwelling within the peritoneal cavity creates some mechanical changes, including an increase in intraperitoneal pressure (IPP) that might lead to intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). The diagnosis of IAH and ACS depend on intra-abdominal measurement of IAP by an indirect technique. There is no clear distinction between IPP and intra-abdominal pressure (IAP). Our objective in this study was to find if there is real difference between IPP and IAP.MethodsThis study was conducted at the PD unit of King Fahd Hospital of the University, Al-Khobar, between July 2008 and January 2009. To be included, patients had to have known ESRD for at least 5 years, to be 18 years of age or older at enrollment, with stable body weight and blood pressure, and with no clinical signs of overhydration. Patients with congestive heart failure III and IV (New York Heart Association criteria) and severe pulmonary disease, psychiatric illnesses, neurogenic bladder, known history of peritonitis, or medical or surgical abdominal intervention in the preceding 3 months were excluded. We measured IAP by the direct technique through the peritoneal catheter and by an indirect technique using an intravesical catheter.ResultsThe 25 patients who met the inclusion criteria included 13 men and 12 women, with a mean age of 53 ± 2 years (range: 18 – 76 years). The predominant causes of ESRD were diabetes mellitus and glomerulonephritis. Mean IPP in the dry state (supine) was 9.49 ± 5 mmHg, and mean IAP was 9.4 ± 5.4 mmHg ( p = 0.9). In the dry state (erect), the mean IPP increased to 16.9 ± 7.2 mmHg, and the mean IAP, to 16.4 ± 6.9 mmHg ( p = 0.8). In the filled state (supine), mean IPP was 12.6 ± 4.7 mmHg, and mean IAP, 12.8 ± 4.8 mmHg ( p = 0.88); the erect pressures were 21.4 ± 7 mmHg and 21.6 ± 6.9 mmHg respectively ( p = 0.9).ConclusionsOur findings indicate that there is no statistical difference between IPP and IAP in either the erect or the supine position.

scholarly journals The Relationship Between Intraabdominal Hypertension and Preeclampsia

2016 ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Mesut A. Ünsal ◽  
Ülkü İnce ◽  
Sevil Cengiz ◽  
S. Caner Karahan ◽  
Turhan Aran
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Intraabdominal Pressure ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Abdominal Pressure ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Abdominal Hypertension ◽  
Intraabdominal Hypertension ◽  
The Mean ◽  
And Control ◽  
The Relationship

<p><strong>OBJECTIVE:</strong> We aimed to measure abdominal pressure and placental levels of malondialdehyde in patients with preeclampsia and investigate the relationship between intraabdominal pressure and clinical features of preeclampsia.<br /><strong>STUDY DESIGN:</strong> Study was conducted at a tertiary referral clinic. Study group consisted of patients with preeclampsia and control group consisted of normotensive pregnant women. Both placental malondialdehyde and intraabdominal pressure levels were studied in all patients. Intraabdominal pressure was assessed indirectly via a Foley bladder catheter both antepartum and postpartum period. Statistical comparisons among groups were made using the Mann-Whitney U test, independent T test and Chi-square test. Statistical significance was set as p&lt;0.05.<br /><strong>RESULTS:</strong> Study and control group consisted of 35 pregnant patients. The mean patients’ age, gravidity, parity, weight and BMI were not different between study and control groups. In the study group, Caesarean, preterm delivery and abdominal hypertension rate were significantly higher whereas the mean neonatal birth weight was lower. The mean antepartum and postpartum intraabdominal pressure levels were significantly higher in study group. The mean intraabdominal pressure was highest in patients with oliguria (19.8±1.8 cmH2O). Abdominal hypertension was detected in 30 (86%) patients in study group and in 3 (9%) patients in control group. The mean placental malondialdehyde level was significantly higher in patients with intraabdominal hypertension.<br /><strong>CONCLUSION:</strong> Abdominal hypertension rate is very high in patients with preeclampsia. Abdominal hypertension may have an additional role in preeclampsia.</p>

High Pressure Measurement Techniques

1986 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 130-130
Author(s):  
Thomas R. Rehm
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
Pressure Measurement ◽  
Measurement Techniques

scholarly journals What is the Relationship among Patients' Position and Intra-abdominal Pressure and Mean Arterial Pressure?

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Yusef Haghighi Moghaddam ◽  
Elnaz Hosseinnejhad ◽  
Mohammad Amin Valizade Hasanloei ◽  
Javad Rasouli
Keyword(s):  
Mean Arterial Pressure ◽  
Arterial Pressure ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Body Position ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Abdominal Pressure ◽  
Abdominal Hypertension ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Relationship

Background: The prevalence of intra-abdominal hypertension in ICU patients is about 50% and can be affected by changing the position of the patients. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between changing patient positions in bed with intra-abdominal pressure and mean arterial pressure among mechanically ventilated patients in ICU. Methods: This study was a clinical trial conducted on 68 patients admitted in intensive care units of Imam Khomeini hospital of Urmia city, Iran. The patients were selected through convenience sampling based on the inclusion criteria. In this study, the effects of changes in five positions (0, 15, 30, 45, left and right lateral position with 30 degrees) on the mean arterial pressure was evaluated. Statistical tests such as chi square and repeated measures ANOVA were used as well. All analyzes were performed using SPSS 21. Results: In this study, there were 24 men (35.3%) and 44 women (64.7%). The mean age, weight and height of patients were 70.35±16.98 years, 75.76±9.77 kg and 168.82±8.14 cm, respectively. There was no significant difference regarding intra-abdominal pressure by gender (p<0.05). There was a significant difference regarding intra-abdominal pressure between first, second, fourth and fifth measurements (p<0.001). There was a significant difference regarding mean arterial pressure between first, second, third, fourth and fifth measurements (p<0.001). Significant differences were observed between the fifth and fourth mean arterial pressure measurements as well (p<0.001). Conclusion: According to the results of this study, the changing of patient's body position from supine to higher positions lead to the increase of intra-abdominal pressure.

Measurements of the excess volume of benzene-methanol, benzene-acetonitrile and methanol-acetonitrile mixtures by a vibrating-tube densimeter

1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Cibulka ◽  
Vladimír Hynek ◽  
Robert Holub ◽  
Jiří Pick
Keyword(s):  
Excess Volume ◽  
Density Measurement ◽  
Indirect Measurement ◽  
Measuring System ◽  
Mean Error ◽  
Shaped Tube ◽  
Underlying Principle ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Vibrating Tube Densimeter

A digital vibrating-tube densimeter was constructed for measuring the density of liquids at several temperatures. The underlying principle of the apparatus is the measurement of the period of eigen-vibrations of a V-shaped tube; the second power of the period of the vibrations is proportional to the density of the liquid in the tube. The temperature of the measuring system is controlled by an electronic regulator. The mean error in the density measurement is approximately ±1 . 10-5 g cm-3 at 25 °C and ±2 . 10-5 g cm-3 at 40 °C. The apparatus was used for an indirect measurement of the excess volume, tested with the benzene-cyclohexane system and further used for determining the excess volume of the benzene-methanol, benzene-acetonitrile and methanol-acetonitrile systems at 25 and 40 °C.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document