Is it feasible to measure intra-abdominal pressure using a balloon-tipped rectal catheter? Results of a validation study
Performance · Agreement IAPves vs IAPrectResult — go to the resultbias - 8.1 mmHg CI - 19 to 2.9Authors' conclusion
IAPrect has important shortcomings making IAP estimation using a rectal catheter unfeasible because the numbers cannot be trusted nor validated.
Study context
- Population
- Sedated and ventilated patients7 not eligible for analysis
- Participants
- 16 participants
- Comparison
- Rectal intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) vs intra-vesical IAP
- Outcome
- Agreement of IAPrect with gold standard IAPves
Methodological detailssimultaneous measurement, method comparison, Measurements twice in different positions (supine, 45° head of bed) and with external abdominal pressure belt
- Simultaneous measurement
- Method comparison
- Measurements twice in different positions (supine, 45° head of bed) and with external abdominal pressure belt
Performance
Agreement IAPves vs IAPrect
bias
- 8.1 mmHg
CI - 19 to 2.9
P ≥ 0.25
As reported in the abstract
- IAPrect significantly higher than IAPves for all body positions
- P < 0.01
- Correlation poor and not significant in each position
- R2 < 0.6, Lin's CCC < 0.8
- Percentage error
- 67.3%
- Concordance
- 86.2%
Further findings
Repeatability of IAPrect
- Not reliable
- R = 0.539, p = 0.315
Effect of external abdominal pressure belt
- Measurements with belt significantly higher than without, both techniques
- P < 0.03
Parts of this Brief are withheld: the automatic checks could not confirm them against the abstract.
Original publication
Is it feasible to measure intra-abdominal pressure using a balloon-tipped rectal catheter? Results of a validation study. J Clin Monit Comput. Published 30 July 2022. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →