Cargando…
Intra-abdominal pressure measurement using the FoleyManometer does not increase the risk for urinary tract infection in critically ill patients
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) monitoring using the FoleyManometer (Holtech Medical, Charlottenlund, Denmark) increases the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI). DESIGN: A retrospective database review was conducted. SETTING: The study was c...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3390297/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22873411 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2110-5820-2-S1-S10 |
_version_ | 1782237422842544128 |
---|---|
author | Desie, Nele Willems, Alexandra De laet, Inneke Dits, Hilde Van Regenmortel, Niels Schoonheydt, Karen Van De Vyvere, Martine Malbrain, Manu LNG |
author_facet | Desie, Nele Willems, Alexandra De laet, Inneke Dits, Hilde Van Regenmortel, Niels Schoonheydt, Karen Van De Vyvere, Martine Malbrain, Manu LNG |
author_sort | Desie, Nele |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) monitoring using the FoleyManometer (Holtech Medical, Charlottenlund, Denmark) increases the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI). DESIGN: A retrospective database review was conducted. SETTING: The study was conducted in the 12-bed medical intensive care unit of ZNA Stuivenberg Hospital (Antwerp, Belgium), a tertiary hospital. PATIENTS: There were 5,890 patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit of which 1,097 patients underwent intrabladder pressure (IBP) monitoring as estimate for IAP. INTERVENTIONS: Crude and adjusted UTI rates were compared among patients undergoing IAP measurements with three different intrabladder methods: a modified homemade technique, a FoleyManometer with 35 ml reservoir, and a FoleyManometer low volume (FoleyManometerLV) with less than 10 ml priming volume. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Four consecutive time periods of 24 months were defined and compared with regard to IAP measurement: period 1 (2000-2001), during which IAP monitoring was not used routinely (which serves as a control group), was compared with period 2 (2002-2003), using a modified homemade technique; period 3 (2004-2005), introducing the FoleyManometer; and finally period 4 (2006-2007), in which the FoleyManometerLV was introduced. The incidence of IBP measurements increased from 1.4% in period 1 to 45.4% in period 4 (p < 0.001). At the same time, the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (version 2) (SAPS-II) increased significantly from 24.4 ± 21.5 to 34.9 ± 18.7 (p < 0.001) together with the percentage of ventilated patients from 18.6% to 40.7% (p < 0.001). In total, 1,097 patients had IAP measurements via the bladder. The UTI rates were adjusted for disease severity by multiplying each crude rate with the ratio of control versus study patient SAPS-II probability of mortality. Crude and adjusted UTI rates per 1,000 catheter days (CD) were on average 16.1 and 12.8/1,000 CD, respectively, and were not significantly different between the four time periods. CONCLUSIONS: Intrabladder pressure monitoring as estimate for IAP either via a closed transducer technique or the closed FoleyManometer technique seems safe and does not alter the risk of UTI in critically ill patients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3390297 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Springer |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-33902972012-07-06 Intra-abdominal pressure measurement using the FoleyManometer does not increase the risk for urinary tract infection in critically ill patients Desie, Nele Willems, Alexandra De laet, Inneke Dits, Hilde Van Regenmortel, Niels Schoonheydt, Karen Van De Vyvere, Martine Malbrain, Manu LNG Ann Intensive Care Research OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) monitoring using the FoleyManometer (Holtech Medical, Charlottenlund, Denmark) increases the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI). DESIGN: A retrospective database review was conducted. SETTING: The study was conducted in the 12-bed medical intensive care unit of ZNA Stuivenberg Hospital (Antwerp, Belgium), a tertiary hospital. PATIENTS: There were 5,890 patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit of which 1,097 patients underwent intrabladder pressure (IBP) monitoring as estimate for IAP. INTERVENTIONS: Crude and adjusted UTI rates were compared among patients undergoing IAP measurements with three different intrabladder methods: a modified homemade technique, a FoleyManometer with 35 ml reservoir, and a FoleyManometer low volume (FoleyManometerLV) with less than 10 ml priming volume. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Four consecutive time periods of 24 months were defined and compared with regard to IAP measurement: period 1 (2000-2001), during which IAP monitoring was not used routinely (which serves as a control group), was compared with period 2 (2002-2003), using a modified homemade technique; period 3 (2004-2005), introducing the FoleyManometer; and finally period 4 (2006-2007), in which the FoleyManometerLV was introduced. The incidence of IBP measurements increased from 1.4% in period 1 to 45.4% in period 4 (p < 0.001). At the same time, the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (version 2) (SAPS-II) increased significantly from 24.4 ± 21.5 to 34.9 ± 18.7 (p < 0.001) together with the percentage of ventilated patients from 18.6% to 40.7% (p < 0.001). In total, 1,097 patients had IAP measurements via the bladder. The UTI rates were adjusted for disease severity by multiplying each crude rate with the ratio of control versus study patient SAPS-II probability of mortality. Crude and adjusted UTI rates per 1,000 catheter days (CD) were on average 16.1 and 12.8/1,000 CD, respectively, and were not significantly different between the four time periods. CONCLUSIONS: Intrabladder pressure monitoring as estimate for IAP either via a closed transducer technique or the closed FoleyManometer technique seems safe and does not alter the risk of UTI in critically ill patients. Springer 2012-07-05 /pmc/articles/PMC3390297/ /pubmed/22873411 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2110-5820-2-S1-S10 Text en Copyright ©2012 Desie et al.; licensee Springer http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Desie, Nele Willems, Alexandra De laet, Inneke Dits, Hilde Van Regenmortel, Niels Schoonheydt, Karen Van De Vyvere, Martine Malbrain, Manu LNG Intra-abdominal pressure measurement using the FoleyManometer does not increase the risk for urinary tract infection in critically ill patients |
title | Intra-abdominal pressure measurement using the FoleyManometer does not increase the risk for urinary tract infection in critically ill patients |
title_full | Intra-abdominal pressure measurement using the FoleyManometer does not increase the risk for urinary tract infection in critically ill patients |
title_fullStr | Intra-abdominal pressure measurement using the FoleyManometer does not increase the risk for urinary tract infection in critically ill patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Intra-abdominal pressure measurement using the FoleyManometer does not increase the risk for urinary tract infection in critically ill patients |
title_short | Intra-abdominal pressure measurement using the FoleyManometer does not increase the risk for urinary tract infection in critically ill patients |
title_sort | intra-abdominal pressure measurement using the foleymanometer does not increase the risk for urinary tract infection in critically ill patients |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3390297/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22873411 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2110-5820-2-S1-S10 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT desienele intraabdominalpressuremeasurementusingthefoleymanometerdoesnotincreasetheriskforurinarytractinfectionincriticallyillpatients AT willemsalexandra intraabdominalpressuremeasurementusingthefoleymanometerdoesnotincreasetheriskforurinarytractinfectionincriticallyillpatients AT delaetinneke intraabdominalpressuremeasurementusingthefoleymanometerdoesnotincreasetheriskforurinarytractinfectionincriticallyillpatients AT ditshilde intraabdominalpressuremeasurementusingthefoleymanometerdoesnotincreasetheriskforurinarytractinfectionincriticallyillpatients AT vanregenmortelniels intraabdominalpressuremeasurementusingthefoleymanometerdoesnotincreasetheriskforurinarytractinfectionincriticallyillpatients AT schoonheydtkaren intraabdominalpressuremeasurementusingthefoleymanometerdoesnotincreasetheriskforurinarytractinfectionincriticallyillpatients AT vandevyveremartine intraabdominalpressuremeasurementusingthefoleymanometerdoesnotincreasetheriskforurinarytractinfectionincriticallyillpatients AT malbrainmanulng intraabdominalpressuremeasurementusingthefoleymanometerdoesnotincreasetheriskforurinarytractinfectionincriticallyillpatients |