Purpose To 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). Methods We 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). Results In 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. Conclusion Although 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.

Purpose To provide evidence-based guidelines for early enteral nutrition (EEN) during critical illness. Methods We aimed to compare EEN vs. early parenteral nutrition (PN) and vs. delayed EN. We defined “early” EN as EN started within 48 h independent of type or amount. We listed, a priori, conditions in which EN is often delayed, and performed systematic reviews in 24 such subtopics. If sufficient evidence was available, we performed meta-analyses; if not, we qualitatively summarized the evidence and based our recommendations on expert opinion. We used the GRADE approach for guideline development. The final recommendations were compiled via Delphi rounds. Results We formulated 17 recommendations favouring initiation of EEN and seven recommendations favouring delaying EN. We performed five meta-analyses: in unselected critically ill patients, and specifically in traumatic brain injury, severe acute pancreatitis, gastrointestinal (GI) surgery and abdominal trauma. EEN reduced infectious complications in unselected critically ill patients, in patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and after GI surgery. We did not detect any evidence of superiority for early PN or delayed EN over EEN. All recommendations are weak because of the low quality of evidence, with several based only on expert opinion. Conclusions We suggest using EEN in the majority of critically ill under certain precautions. In the absence of evidence, we suggest delaying EN in critically ill patients with uncontrolled shock, uncontrolled hypoxaemia and acidosis, uncontrolled upper GI bleeding, gastric aspirate >500 ml/6 h, bowel ischaemia, bowel obstruction, abdominal compartment syndrome, and high-output fistula without distal feeding access.

Background: Sepsis is associated with generalised endothelial injury and capillary leak and has traditionally been treated with large volume fluid resuscitation. Some patients with sepsis will accumulate bodily fluids. The aim of this study was to systematically review the association between a positive fluid balance/fluid overload and outcomes in critically ill adults, and to determine whether interventions aimed at reducing fluid balance may be linked with improved outcomes. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, The Cochrane Database, clinical trials registries, and bibliographies of included articles. Two authors independently reviewed citations and selected studies examining the association between fluid balance and outcomes or where the intervention was any strategy or protocol that attempted to obtain a negative or neutral cumulative fluid balance after the third day of intensive care compared to usual care. The primary outcomes of interest were the incidence of IAH and mortality. Results: Among all identified citations, one individual patient meta-analysis, 11 randomised controlled clinical trials, seven interventional studies, 24 observational studies, and four case series met the inclusion criteria. Altogether, 19,902 critically ill patients were studied. The cumulative fluid balance after one week of ICU stay was 4.4 L more positive in non-survivors compared to survivors. A restrictive fluid management strategy resulted in a less positive cumulative fluid balance of 5.6 L compared to controls after one week of ICU stay. A restrictive fluid management was associated with a lower mortality compared to patients treated with a more liberal fluid management strategy (24.7% vs 33.2%; OR, 0.42; 95% CI 0.32−0.55; P < 0.0001). Patients with intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) had a more positive cumulative fluid balance of 3.4 L after one week of ICU stay. Interventions to decrease fluid balance resulted in a decrease in intra-abdominal pressure (IAP): an average total body fluid removal of 4.9 L resulted in a drop in IAP from 19.3 ± 9.1 mm Hg to 11.5 ± 3.9 mm Hg. Conclusions: A positive cumulative fluid balance is associated with IAH and worse outcomes. Interventions to limit the development of a positive cumulative fluid balance are associated with improved outcomes. In patients not transgressing spontaneously from the Ebb to Flow phases of shock, late conservative fluid management and late goal directed fluid removal (de-resuscitation) should be considered. Background: Sepsis is associated with generalised endothelial injury and capillary leak and has traditionally been treated with large volume fluid resuscitation. Some patients with sepsis will accumulate bodily fluids. The aim of this study was to systematically review the association between a positive fluid balance/fluid overload and outcomes in critically ill adults, and to determine whether interventions aimed at reducing fluid balance may be linked with improved outcomes. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, The Cochrane Database, clinical trials registries, and bibliographies of included articles. Two authors independently reviewed citations and selected studies examining the association between fluid balance and outcomes or where the intervention was any strategy or protocol that attempted to obtain a negative or neutral cumulative fluid balance after the third day of intensive care compared to usual care. The primary outcomes of interest were the incidence of IAH and mortality. Results: Among all identified citations, one individual patient meta-analysis, 11 randomised controlled clinical trials, seven interventional studies, 24 observational studies, and four case series met the inclusion criteria. Altogether, 19,902 critically ill patients were studied. The cumulative fluid balance after one week of ICU stay was 4.4 L more positive in non-survivors compared to survivors. A restrictive fluid management strategy resulted in a less positive cumulative fluid balance of 5.6 L compared to controls after one week of ICU stay. A restrictive fluid management was associated with a lower mortality compared to patients treated with a more liberal fluid management strategy (24.7% vs 33.2%; OR, 0.42; 95% CI 0.32−0.55; P < 0.0001). Patients with intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) had a more positive cumulative fluid balance of 3.4 L after one week of ICU stay. Interventions to decrease fluid balance resulted in a decrease in intra-abdominal pressure (IAP): an average total body fluid removal of 4.9 L resulted in a drop in IAP from 19.3 ± 9.1 mm Hg to 11.5 ± 3.9 mm Hg. Conclusions: A positive cumulative fluid balance is associated with IAH and worse outcomes. Interventions to limit the development of a positive cumulative fluid balance are associated with improved outcomes. In patients not transgressing spontaneously from the Ebb to Flow phases of shock, late conservative fluid management and late goal directed fluid removal (de-resuscitation) should be considered.

Purpose Acute gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction and failure have been increasingly recognized in critically ill patients. The variety of definitions proposed in the past has led to confusion and difficulty in comparing one study to another. An international working group convened to standardize the definitions for acute GI failure and GI symptoms and to review the therapeutic options. Methods The Working Group on Abdominal Problems (WGAP) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) developed the definitions for GI dysfunction in intensive care patients on the basis of the available evidence and current understanding of the pathophysiology. Results Definitions for acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) with its four grades of severity, as well as for feeding intolerance syndrome and GI symptoms (e.g. vomiting, diarrhoea, paralysis, high gastric residual volumes) are proposed. AGI is a malfunctioning of the GI tract in intensive care patients due to their acute illness. AGI grade I = increased risk of developing GI dysfunction or failure (a self-limiting condition); AGI grade II = GI dysfunction (a condition that requires interventions); AGI grade III = GI failure (GI function cannot be restored with interventions); AGI grade IV = dramatically manifesting GI failure (a condition that is immediately life-threatening). Current evidence and expert opinions regarding treatment of acute GI dysfunction are provided. Conclusions State-of-the-art definitions for GI dysfunction with gradation as well as management recommendations are proposed on the basis of current medical evidence and expert opinion. The WGAP recommends using these definitions for clinical and research purposes.