Intra-abdominal pressure in children receiving peritoneal dialysis for acute kidney injury.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Peter Nourse, Mignon McCulloch, Ashton Coetzee, Timothy Bunchman, Stefano Picca, Jody Rusch, Andre Brooks, Hilton Heydenrych, Brenda Morrow
{"title":"Intra-abdominal pressure in children receiving peritoneal dialysis for acute kidney injury.","authors":"Peter Nourse, Mignon McCulloch, Ashton Coetzee, Timothy Bunchman, Stefano Picca, Jody Rusch, Andre Brooks, Hilton Heydenrych, Brenda Morrow","doi":"10.1177/08968608261472553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundCritically ill children on peritoneal dialysis (PD) are at an increased risk of raised intra-abdominal pressure (IAP). The aim of this study was to describe IAP and complications with a standard PD fill volume, using conventional PD and continuous flow PD (CFPD) in critically ill children with acute kidney injury. A secondary objective was to compare two IAP measurement techniques, which were direct measurement from the PD catheter via a manometer and indirect measurement via the bladder catheter to a transducer.MethodThis study was a secondary analysis of a previously published randomized controlled crossover trial. Within- and between-group changes in IAP, blood pressure and ventilation parameters were analysed using paired t-tests. Bland-Altman and intraclass correlation tests were used to assess agreement between direct and intravesicular measurement of IAP.ResultsFifteen participants (median (range) age and weight 6.0 (0.2-14) months and 5.8 (2.3-14.0) kg) were included, of which 9 (60%) had raised IAP (>10 mmHg) after filling. No children developed compartment syndrome or other complications. Mean ± standard deviation IAP on conventional versus CFPD was 9.35 ± 2.97 and 11.5 ± 2.96 versus 9.3 ± 3.35 and 11.2 ± 3.62 when measured directly and indirectly, respectively (<i>p</i> > 0.5). Intravesicular measurement of IAP was constantly significantly higher compared to the direct method (<i>p</i> = 0.002); however, there was good correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.7; <i>p</i> < 0.001) and moderate reliability (ICC = 0.6) between the methods.ConclusionIncreased IAP (>10 mmHg) was common, although not associated with serious adverse events, and warrants monitoring in these patients. The pressures measured are different with the two techniques used, although they do correlate well. More studies are needed to define increased IAP depending on the measuring technique and inform IAP measurement practice in children with acute PD.</p>","PeriodicalId":19969,"journal":{"name":"Peritoneal Dialysis International","volume":" ","pages":"8968608261472553"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Peritoneal Dialysis International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08968608261472553","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundCritically ill children on peritoneal dialysis (PD) are at an increased risk of raised intra-abdominal pressure (IAP). The aim of this study was to describe IAP and complications with a standard PD fill volume, using conventional PD and continuous flow PD (CFPD) in critically ill children with acute kidney injury. A secondary objective was to compare two IAP measurement techniques, which were direct measurement from the PD catheter via a manometer and indirect measurement via the bladder catheter to a transducer.MethodThis study was a secondary analysis of a previously published randomized controlled crossover trial. Within- and between-group changes in IAP, blood pressure and ventilation parameters were analysed using paired t-tests. Bland-Altman and intraclass correlation tests were used to assess agreement between direct and intravesicular measurement of IAP.ResultsFifteen participants (median (range) age and weight 6.0 (0.2-14) months and 5.8 (2.3-14.0) kg) were included, of which 9 (60%) had raised IAP (>10 mmHg) after filling. No children developed compartment syndrome or other complications. Mean ± standard deviation IAP on conventional versus CFPD was 9.35 ± 2.97 and 11.5 ± 2.96 versus 9.3 ± 3.35 and 11.2 ± 3.62 when measured directly and indirectly, respectively (p > 0.5). Intravesicular measurement of IAP was constantly significantly higher compared to the direct method (p = 0.002); however, there was good correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.7; p < 0.001) and moderate reliability (ICC = 0.6) between the methods.ConclusionIncreased IAP (>10 mmHg) was common, although not associated with serious adverse events, and warrants monitoring in these patients. The pressures measured are different with the two techniques used, although they do correlate well. More studies are needed to define increased IAP depending on the measuring technique and inform IAP measurement practice in children with acute PD.

急性肾损伤接受腹膜透析的儿童腹内压。
接受腹膜透析(PD)的危重患儿腹内压(IAP)升高的风险增加。本研究的目的是描述急性肾损伤危重患儿在标准PD填充量下,使用常规PD和连续血流PD (CFPD)的IAP和并发症。第二个目的是比较两种IAP测量技术,一种是通过压力计从PD导管直接测量,另一种是通过膀胱导管到传感器间接测量。方法本研究是对先前发表的一项随机对照交叉试验的二次分析。使用配对t检验分析组内和组间IAP、血压和通气参数的变化。Bland-Altman和类内相关检验用于评估直接测量IAP和囊泡内测量IAP之间的一致性。结果15名参与者(年龄中位数(范围)为6.0(0.2-14)个月,体重中位数(范围)为5.8 (2.3-14.0)kg),其中9名(60%)在充血后IAP升高(bb0 - 10 mmHg)。没有儿童出现筋膜间室综合征或其他并发症。直接和间接测量时,常规与CFPD的平均±标准差IAP分别为9.35±2.97和11.5±2.96,而9.3±3.35和11.2±3.62 (p < 0.05)。囊内IAP测量值持续显著高于直接法(p = 0.002);然而,有良好的相关性(Pearson相关系数0.7;p10 mmHg)是常见的,尽管不与严重的不良事件相关,值得对这些患者进行监测。使用两种技术测量的压力是不同的,尽管它们确实有很好的相关性。需要更多的研究来定义IAP的增加,这取决于测量技术,并为急性PD患儿的IAP测量实践提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Peritoneal Dialysis International
Peritoneal Dialysis International 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
17.90%
发文量
69
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Peritoneal Dialysis International (PDI) is an international publication dedicated to peritoneal dialysis. PDI welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of peritoneal dialysis from scientists working in the peritoneal dialysis field around the world. Peritoneal Dialysis International is included in Index Medicus and indexed in Current Contents/Clinical Practice, the Science Citation Index, and Excerpta Medica (Nephrology/Urology Core Journal). It is also abstracted and indexed in Chemical Abstracts (CA), as well as being indexed in Embase as a priority journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书