PurposeTo update the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (WSACS) consensus definitions and management statements relating to intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and the abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS).MethodsWe conducted systematic or structured reviews to identify relevant studies relating to IAH or ACS. Updated consensus definitions and management statements were then derived using a modified Delphi method and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines, respectively. Quality of evidence was graded from high (A) to very low (D) and management statements from strong RECOMMENDATIONS (desirable effects clearly outweigh potential undesirable ones) to weaker SUGGESTIONS (potential risks and benefits of the intervention are less clear).ResultsIn addition to reviewing the consensus definitions proposed in 2006, the WSACS defined the open abdomen, lateralization of the abdominal musculature, polycompartment syndrome, and abdominal compliance, and proposed an open abdomen classification system. RECOMMENDATIONS included intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) measurement, avoidance of sustained IAH, protocolized IAP monitoring and management, decompressive laparotomy for overt ACS, and negative pressure wound therapy and efforts to achieve same-hospital-stay fascial closure among patients with an open abdomen. SUGGESTIONS included use of medical therapies and percutaneous catheter drainage for treatment of IAH/ACS, considering the association between body position and IAP, attempts to avoid a positive fluid balance after initial patient resuscitation, use of enhanced ratios of plasma to red blood cells and prophylactic open abdominal strategies, and avoidance of routine early biologic mesh use among patients with open abdominal wounds. NO RECOMMENDATIONS were possible regarding monitoring of abdominal perfusion pressure or the use of diuretics, renal replacement therapies, albumin, or acute component-parts separation.ConclusionAlthough IAH and ACS are common and frequently associated with poor outcomes, the overall quality of evidence available to guide development of RECOMMENDATIONS was generally low. Appropriately designed intervention trials are urgently needed for patients with IAH and ACS.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-013-2906-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Over the last few decades, increasing attention has been paid to understanding the pathophysiology, aetiology, prognosis, and treatment of elevated intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) in trauma, surgical, and medical patients. However, there is presently a relatively poor understanding of intra-abdominal volume (IAV) and the relationship between IAV and IAP (i.e. abdominal compliance). Consensus definitions on Cab were discussed during the 5th World Congress on Abdominal Compartment Syndrome and a writing committee was formed to develop this article. During the writing process, a systematic and structured Medline and PubMed search was conducted to identify relevant studies relating to the topic. According to the recently updated consensus definitions of the World Society on Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (WSACS), abdominal compliance (Cab) is defined as a measure of the ease of abdominal expansion, which is determined by the elasticity of the abdominal wall and diaphragm. It should be expressed as the change in IAV per change in IAP (mL [mm Hg]⁻¹). Importantly, Cab is measured differently than IAP and the abdominal wall (and its compliance) is only a part of the total abdominal pressure-volume (PV) relationship. During an increase in IAV, different phases are encountered: the reshaping, stretching, and pressurisation phases. The first part of this review article starts with a comprehensive list of the different definitions related to IAP (at baseline, during respiratory variations, at maximal IAV), IAV (at baseline, additional volume, abdominal workspace, maximal and unadapted volume), and abdominal compliance and elastance (i.e. the relationship between IAV and IAP). An historical background on the pathophysiology related to IAP, IAV and Cab follows this. Measurement of Cab is difficult at the bedside and can only be done in a case of change (removal or addition) in IAV. The Cab is one of the most neglected parameters in critically ill patients, although it plays a key role in understanding the deleterious effects of unadapted IAV on IAP and end-organ perfusion. The definitions presented herein will help to understand the key mechanisms in relation to Cab and clinical conditions and should be used for future clinical and basic science research. Specific measurement methods, guidelines and recommendations for clinical management of patients with low Cab are published in a separate review.

Head of bed elevation results in clinically significant increases in measured IAP. Consistent body positioning from one IAP measurement to the next is necessary to allow consistent trending of IAP for accurate clinical decision making. Studies that involve IAP measurements should describe the patient's body position so that these values may be properly interpreted.

These recommendations are proposed to guide clinical research in the field of IAH and ACS.

In patients admitted to the intensive care unit who were anaemic, intravenous iron, compared with placebo, did not result in a significant lowering of red blood cell transfusion requirement during hospital stay. Patients who received intravenous iron had a significantly higher haemoglobin concentration at hospital discharge. The trial was registered at http://www.anzctr.org.au as # ACTRN12612001249842.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The recent definitions on intra-abdominal pressure (IAP), intra-abdominal volume (IAV) and abdominal compliance (C ab ) are a step forward in understanding these important concepts. They help our understanding of the pathophysiology, aetiology, prognosis, and treatment of patients with low C ab . However, there is still a relatively poor understanding of the different methods used to measure IAP, IAV and C ab and how certain conditions may affect the results. This review will give a concise overview of the different methods to

To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 .Methods: Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. Results:We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (-1 to 15), 0 (-1 to 9) and-1 (-1 to 7), respectively,