IAH logo 

Home    
Links    
Contact Us    

 


Home | IAH/ACS Overview | Teaching Materials | Interventions | Monitoring Techniques | FAQ | Bibliography | Links |

Burns and Intra-abdominal hypertension

 The severely injured burn patient represents a near ideal combination of pathophysiologic events to cause intraabdominal hypertension – massive systemic inflammatory response plus high intravenous fluid requirements.  Because of the massive inflammatory response that occurs in burn patients a major capillary leak develops. This is clearly manifested by the fluid requirements of these patients and by the external edema that is visible in all major burns. While the external edema is readily apparent, capillary leak and edema in the bowel wall as well as sequestration of cytokine rich free fluid within the peritoneal cavity is substantial.[1] The end result is a very high incidence of intra-abdominal hypertension in major burn cases with prospective studies demonstrating abdominal compartment syndrome in a majority of major burns.[2, 3] 

Monitoring IAH and preventing over resuscitation of burn patients

"Fluid Creep" is a term coined by Dr. Jeff Saffle from the University of Utah. It implies over resuscitation of burn victims with excess fluids. The reason it is so important is the recognition that  excess fluid administration in burns leads to a very high incidence of IAH/ACS with worse outcomes. Being conscious of this problem, aggressively intervening for IAH prior to ACS and modifying the Parkland formula for fluid administration has led to a dramatic reduction in ACS and its attendant morbidity and mortality in his institution over the last decade. Others have followed suit. Ennis et al began to more carefully assess fluid status using CVP and IAP as markers for over-resuscitation in Soldiers burned in the Iraq war. By ceasing further fluid administration regardless of UOP once both IAP and CVP were elevated the coalition medical forces have seen a dramatic decrease in the incidence of abdominal compartment syndrome as well as in mortality.[15] Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond also reported on their results following introduction of a nursing empowered IAP monitoring protocol that included standing fluid management orders in a burn unit. They found that by introducing this protocol, ACS occurrence decreased from 40% to 0%.[17] Their conclusions - "judicious use of fluids and the empowerment of ICU nurses to titrate resuscitation in patients with severe burn results in a reduction in the rate of secondary ACS. 'Fluid creep' is a problem which should be anticipated and prevented."

Treatment and prevention of IAH in the burn patient.

All major burn patients should be aggressively monitored for the development of IAH (ideally long before ACS occurs).[4-6] When treating a burn patient with intraabdominal hypertension it is probably best to follow the current guidelines put out by the World Society of abdominal compartment syndrome (click here for a link to these protocols).

Escharotomy and Paracentesis

Burn patients with IAH may respond to unique treatment modalities – escharotomy and paracentesis.  If they have torso burns, the initial treatment for rising IAP may be escharotomy, allowing the abdominal cavity to expand and reducing the abdominal pressure.[7, 8] Percutaneous drainage of fluid out of the peritoneal cavity is another effective and less invasive intervention for burn patients. Since these patients have such and aggressive capillary leak they tend to leak fluid into the abdominal cavity that can be removed using paracentesis.  Multiple authors describe successful reduction of intra-abdominal pressure in burn patients treated with paracentesis. Usually these drains are left in place for several days to acts as continuous fluid and cytokine drains.[9-11] This intervention offers two benefits – it provides an immediate reduction in IAP through drainage for free fluid and a continuous outlet as excess abdominal fluid accumulates, plus it removes high levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines that accumulate in the gut – a process that likely reduces serum inflammatory mediators and benefits the entire body.[1, 12]

Fluid selection and volume:

 Colloids or hypertonic resuscitation fluids may prevent the progression of ACS in burn patients, though outcomes improvements are conflicting.  Lawrence found albumin administration limited the amount of fluid required in severely burned patients and assisted in preventing full blown abdominal compartment syndrome.[13] O’Mara found plasma resuscitation significantly reduced fluid use and progression to ACS in their burn population.[14] Oda also noted reduction in fluid requirements and the percentage of patients developing ACS when hypertonic saline was introduced in his burn protocol.[3] However, Bechir noted a worse outcome in major burn patients – higher mortality and more renal failure -  when hyperoncotic hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 200/0.5 (10%) was used in an attempt to reduce complications including abdominal compartment syndrome. A review by Latenser states that the only consensus is that adequate fluid must be given to prevent early death from major burns, that too much fluid must not be given to reduce the risk of IAH/ACS and that there is no clinical advantage demonstrated for colloids in meta-analysis of the data.[4] She recommends the University of Utah treatment algorithm as a good consensus document that implements early aggressive fluids with initial urine output as an easy gage as to appropriate resuscitation.

University Utah burn protocol 

(click here to enlarge)

 Fluid resuscitation algorithm – University of Utah / Jeff Saffle MD

 Using this algorithm as a guide, she recommends that all patients with burns in excess of 30% TBSA and all patients with UOP less than 15 ml/hr for 2 hours must have intra- abdominal pressure monitoring implemented since high IAP will prevent renal perfusion, making UOP monitoring much less reliable as a sign of under resuscitation (click here to understand the physiologic impact of IAP on renal function). Implementation of this concept –ceasing further fluid administration regardless of UOP once both IAP and CVP were elevated – has been used to treat soldiers in the Iraq war and has led to a dramatic decrease in the incidence of abdominal compartment syndrome as well as in mortality.[15]

Slide presentation: Abdominal compartment syndrome in burns. Barbara Latenser, MD

 Summary:

IAH is extremely common in burn patients and burn surgery experts recommend all patients with large burns (20-30) and those with poor urine output have their IAP monitored to ensure IAH/ACS is not developing.[4, 5] Since large burns patients who develop ACS have mortalities in excess of 80%, all patients with IAH should be aggressively treated with a multimodal approach to reducing their IAP and if unsuccessful early and aggressive decompressive laparotomy should be implemented.[4, 16]

 References:

1. Kowal-Vern, A., et al., Elevated cytokine levels in peritoneal fluid from burned patients with intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome. Burns, 2006.

2. Ivy, M.E., et al., Intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome in burn patients. J Trauma, 2000. 49(3): p. 387-91.

3.  Oda, J., et al., Hypertonic lactated saline resuscitation reduces the risk of abdominal compartment syndrome in severely burned patients. J Trauma, 2006. 60(1): p. 64-71.

4. Latenser, B.A., Critical care of the burn patient: the first 48 hours. Crit Care Med, 2009. 37(10): p. 2819-26.

5. Azzopardi, E.A., et al., Fluid resuscitation in adults with severe burns at risk of secondary abdominal compartment syndrome-An evidence based systematic review. Burns, 2009.

6. Tuggle, D., et al., The abdominal compartment syndrome in patients with burn injury. Acta Clin Belg Suppl, 2007(1): p. 136-40.

7. Tsoutsos, D., et al., Early Escharotomy as a Measure to Reduce Intraabdominal Hypertension in Full-Thickness Burns of the Thoracic and Abdominal Area. World J Surg, 2003.

8. Oda, J., et al., Effects of escharotomy as abdominal decompression on cardiopulmonary function and visceral perfusion in abdominal compartment syndrome with burn patients. J Trauma, 2005. 59(2): p. 369-74.

9. Latenser, B.A., et al., A pilot study comparing percutaneous decompression with decompressive laparotomy for acute abdominal compartment syndrome in thermal injury. J Burn Care Rehabil, 2002. 23(3): p. 190-5.

10. Corcos, A.C. and H.F. Sherman, Percutaneous treatment of secondary abdominal compartment syndrome. J Trauma, 2001. 51(6): p. 1062-4.

11. Parra, M.W., et al., Paracentesis for resuscitation-induced abdominal compartment syndrome: an alternative to decompressive laparotomy in the burn patient. J Trauma, 2006. 60(5): p. 1119-21.

12. Kubiak, B.D., et al., Peritoneal negative pressure therapy reduces both peritoneal and systemic inflammation and prevents abdominal compartment syndrome. Acta Clinica Belgica, 2009. 64(3): p. 260 (Abstract 43).

13. Lawrence, A., et al., Colloid administration normalizes resuscitation ratio and ameliorates "fluid creep". J Burn Care Res, 2010. 31(1): p. 40-7.

14. O'Mara, M.S., et al., A prospective, randomized evaluation of intra-abdominal pressures with crystalloid and colloid resuscitation in burn patients. J Trauma, 2005. 58(5): p. 1011-8.

15. Ennis, J.L., et al., Joint Theater Trauma System implementation of burn resuscitation guidelines improves outcomes in severely burned military casualties. J Trauma, 2008. 64(2 Suppl): p. S146-51; discussion S151-2.

16. Hershberger, R.C., et al., Abdominal compartment syndrome in the severely burned patient. J Burn Care Res, 2007. 28(5): p. 708-14.

17. Whelan, J.F., et al., Nursing empowerment is an important part of a burn resuscitation protocol, resulting in decreased fluid creep. Am Surg, 2011. 77(7): p. S102.