RESUMO
BACKGROUND: General pathophysiological mechanisms regarding associations between fluid administration and intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) are evident, but specific effects of type, amount, and timing of fluids are less clear. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to summarize current knowledge on associations between fluid administration and intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and fluid management in patients at risk of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). METHODS: We performed a structured literature search from 1950 until May 2021 to identify evidence of associations between fluid management and intra-abdominal pressure not limited to any specific study or patient population. Findings were summarized based on the following information: general concepts of fluid management, physiology of fluid movement in patients with intra-abdominal hypertension, and data on associations between fluid administration and IAH. RESULTS: We identified three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 38 prospective observational studies, 29 retrospective studies, 18 case reports in adults, two observational studies and 10 case reports in children, and three animal studies that addressed associations between fluid administration and IAH. Associations between fluid resuscitation and IAH were confirmed in most studies. Fluid resuscitation contributes to the development of IAH. However, patients with IAH receive more fluids to manage the effect of IAH on other organ systems, thereby causing a vicious cycle. Timing and approach to de-resuscitation are of utmost importance, but clear indicators to guide this decision-making process are lacking. In selected cases, only surgical decompression of the abdomen can stop deterioration and prevent further morbidity and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence confirms an association between fluid resuscitation and secondary IAH, but optimal fluid management strategies for patients with IAH remain controversial.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To measure the association of intensive care unit (ICU) capacity strain with processes of care and outcomes of critical illness in a resource-limited setting. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 5332 patients referred to the ICUs at 2 public hospitals in South Africa using the country's first published multicenter electronic critical care database. We assessed the association between multiple ICU capacity strain metrics (ICU occupancy, turnover, census acuity, and referral burden) at different exposure time points (ICU referral, admission, and/or discharge) with clinical and process of care outcomes. The association of ICU capacity strain at the time of ICU admission with ICU length of stay (LOS), the primary outcome, was analyzed with a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model. Secondary outcomes of ICU triage decision (with strain at ICU referral), ICU mortality (with strain at ICU admission), and ICU LOS (with strain at ICU discharge), were analyzed with linear and logistic multivariable regression. RESULTS: No measure of ICU capacity strain at the time of ICU admission was associated with ICU LOS, the primary outcome. The ICU occupancy at the time of ICU admission was associated with increased odds of ICU mortality (odds ratio = 1.07, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.11; P = .004), a secondary outcome, such that a 10% increase in ICU occupancy would be associated with a 7% increase in the odds of ICU mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In a resource-limited setting in South Africa, ICU capacity strain at the time of ICU admission was not associated with ICU LOS. In secondary analyses, higher ICU occupancy at the time of ICU admission, but not other measures of capacity strain, was associated with increased odds of ICU mortality.