Intra-Abdominal Hypertension Is More Common Than Previously Thought: A Prospective Study in a Mixed Medical-Surgical ICU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of intra-abdominal hypertension in mixed medical-surgical critically ill patients using modern definitions and measurement techniques. Secondarily to determine variables associated with intra-abdominal hypertension and ICU mortality. DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: Single institution trauma, medical and surgical ICU in Canada. PATIENTS: Consecutive adult patients admitted to the ICU (n = 285). INTERVENTION: Intra-abdominal pressure measurements twice a day during admission to the ICU. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In 285 patients who met inclusion criteria, 30% were diagnosed with intra-abdominal hypertension at admission and a further 15% developed intra-abdominal hypertension during admission. The prevalence of abdominal compartment syndrome was 3%. Obesity, sepsis, mechanical ventilation, and 24-hour fluid balance (> 3 L) were all independent predictors for intra-abdominal hypertension. Intra-abdominal hypertension occurred in 28% of nonventilated patients. Admission type (medical vs surgical vs trauma) was not a significant predictor of intra-abdominal hypertension. Overall ICU mortality was 20% and was significantly higher for patients with intra-abdominal hypertension (30%) compared with patients without intra-abdominal hypertension (11%). Intra-abdominal hypertension of any grade was an independent predictor of mortality (odds ratio, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.46-7.57). CONCLUSIONS: Intra-abdominal hypertension is common in both surgical and nonsurgical patients in the intensive care setting and was found to be independently associated with mortality. Despite prior reports to the contrary, intra-abdominal hypertension develops in nonventilated patients and in patients who do not have intra-abdominal hypertension at admission. Intra-abdominal pressure monitoring is inexpensive, provides valuable clinical information, and there may be a role for its routine measurement in the ICU. Future work should evaluate the impact of early interventions for patients with intra-abdominal hypertension.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".