A clinician’s guide to management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome in critically ill patients

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 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901

Prospective Study Examining Clinical Outcomes Associated with a Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System and Barker’s Vacuum Packing Technique

Background The open abdomen has become a common procedure in the management of complex abdominal problems and has improved patient survival. The method of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) may play a role in patient outcome. Methods A prospective, observational, open-label study was performed to evaluate two TAC techniques in surgical and trauma patients requiring open abdomen management: Barker’s vacuum-packing technique (BVPT) and the ABTheraTM open abdomen negative pressure therapy system (NPWT). Study endpoints were days to and rate of 30-day primary fascial closure (PFC) and 30-day all-cause mortality. Results Altogether, 280 patients were enrolled from 20 study sites. Among them, 168 patients underwent at least 48 hours of consistent TAC therapy (111 NPWT, 57 BVPT). The two study groups were well matched demographically. Median days to PFC were 9 days for NPWT versus 12 days for BVPT (p = 0.12). The 30-day PFC rate was 69 % for NPWT and 51 % for BVPT (p = 0.03). The 30-day all-cause mortality was 14 % for NPWT and 30 % for BVPT (p = 0.01). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified that patients treated with NPWT were significantly more likely to survive than the BVPT patients [odds ratio 3.17 (95 % confidence interval 1.22–8.26); p = 0.02] after controlling for age, severity of illness, and cumulative fluid administration. Conclusions Active NPWT is associated with significantly higher 30-day PFC rates and lower 30-day all-cause mortality among patients who require an open abdomen for at least 48 h during treatment for critical illness

Principles of fluid management and stewardship in septic shock: it is time to consider the four D's and the four phases of fluid therapy

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