Abdominal Compartment Syndrome

On this page

Quick Reference

RxDrug of choiceCis‑atracurium infusion 0.05‑0.1 mg/kg/h (for temporary neuromuscular blockade)

AltAlternativesFentanyl infusion 25‑50 µg/h for analgesia; norepinephrine titrated to MAP ≥ 65 mm Hg

⊘AvoidNon‑dihydropyridine calcium‑channel blockers (verapamil, diltiazem) - increase IAP by reducing venous return

DxTest of choiceBladder‑derived intra‑abdominal pressure measurement (gold‑standard)

ScKey scoreGIF score - grade 4 confirms ACS; mean GIF ≥ 2 predicts threefold mortality

→When to referIAP ≥ 20 mm Hg with new organ dysfunction despite medical optimization, or IAP ≥ 15 mm Hg with refractory shock

Measure IAP early, treat IAP ≥ 20 mm Hg with organ failure by emergent decompression, and use continuous pressure monitoring to guide therapy.

Abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) is a life‑threatening condition in which intra‑abdominal pressure (IAP) exceeds 20 mm Hg and precipitates new organ dysfunction. It can arise from massive fluid resuscitation, trauma, severe pancreatitis, or postoperative edema, and it links directly to all four shock phenotypes by impairing venous return and organ perfusion. Prompt recognition, bedside IAP measurement, and timely decompression are the cornerstones of therapy; delays dramatically increase mortality, often exceeding 50 % in severe cases.

Overview and Recommendations

Background

•Abdominal compartment syndrome - defined by IAP > 20 mm Hg with new organ failure - occurs in up to 12 % of critically ill adults and carries a mortality of 50‑70 % when untreated.
•Intra‑abdominal hypertension (IAH) precedes ACS; IAP ≥ 12 mm Hg is common (≈30 % of ICU admissions) and predicts progression to ACS, especially in mechanically ventilated, obese, or septic patients.
•The pathophysiologic cascade hinges on pressure‑induced venous compression, reduced abdominal perfusion pressure, intestinal ischemia, and a cytokine‑driven edema loop that amplifies IAP.
•Four clinical grades (GIF score 0‑4) integrate feeding intolerance and IAP; a mean GIF ≥ 2 in the first three ICU days triples mortality risk, underscoring the prognostic value of early pressure monitoring.

Evaluation

•Suspect ACS in any patient with sudden abdominal distension, oliguria, rising ventilatory pressures, or unexplained hypotension, especially after large‑volume crystalloid (>300 ml/kg/24 h), trauma, or severe pancreatitis.
•Ask about recent massive fluid resuscitation, abdominal surgery, intra‑abdominal infection, or neuromuscular blockade that may mask abdominal wall tone.
•Examine for a tense, non‑compressible abdomen, diminished breath sounds, and peripheral edema; note that physical exam alone has low sensitivity.
•Measure intra‑abdominal pressure via bladder catheter (supine, transducer zeroed at mid‑axillary line) within 6 hours of risk identification; repeat every 4 hours in high‑risk patients.
•Interpret IAP values: <12 mm Hg = normal; 12‑19 mm Hg = IAH; ≥20 mm Hg + organ dysfunction = ACS. Document peak IAP and trend over time.
•Order serum lactate, arterial blood gas, and renal function tests; rising lactate or metabolic acidosis often parallels worsening IAP.
•Obtain a bedside chest/abdominal ultrasound or CT if free fluid, hematoma, or bowel edema is suspected, but do not delay bladder pressure measurement.
•Apply the diagnostic algorithm: risk factors → IAP measurement → IAP ≥ 12 mm Hg? → assess organ dysfunction → IAP ≥ 20 mm Hg + dysfunction confirms ACS.
•Calculate concurrent severity scores (SOFA, APACHE II) to gauge overall risk; a SOFA > 7 or APACHE II > 15 signals high mortality and may prompt earlier decompression.
•Screen for secondary contributors (e.g., ascites, intra‑abdominal bleed) that can be addressed percutaneously before operative intervention.

Management

•Initiate the ACS pathway immediately when IAP ≥ 20 mm Hg with organ dysfunction - do not wait for imaging confirmation.
•Begin medical optimization: analgesia, light sedation, neuromuscular blockade (e.g., cis‑atracurium 0.1 mg/kg bolus then infusion 0.05‑0.1 mg/kg/h), head‑of‑bed elevation 30°, and avoid excessive positive fluid balance (>10 ml kg⁻¹ h⁻¹).
•Insert a nasogastric tube and consider rectal decompression to evacuate intraluminal gas and fluid; limit enteral feeds until IAP stabilizes.
•If free intra‑abdominal fluid is present, perform percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) under imaging guidance; aim for IAP reduction <12 mm Hg before proceeding to surgery.
•Proceed to emergent decompressive laparotomy when IAP remains ≥20 mm Hg despite medical and percutaneous measures, or when rapid organ decline occurs.
•During laparotomy, open the abdomen widely, evacuate fluid/hematoma, and apply temporary abdominal closure with negative‑pressure wound therapy (VAC) at -125 mm Hg.
•Titrate vasopressors to maintain MAP ≥ 65 mm Hg and calculate abdominal perfusion pressure (APP = MAP - IAP); target APP > 60 mm Hg.
•Start continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) when KDIGO stage 3 AKI develops or fluid overload threatens IAP; prescribe CRRT dose ≥ 25 ml kg⁻¹ h⁻¹.
•If the patient is on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), continue circuit flow ≥ 3.5 L/min and anticoagulate with unfractionated heparin to an ACT of 180‑200 s; decompression improves both ventilation and hemodynamics.
•Monitor IAP every 4 hours; once IAP ≤12 mm Hg for 24 hours and organ function stabilizes, plan definitive fascial closure within 7‑10 days to reduce fistula and hernia risk.
•Advance early enteral nutrition via post‑pyloric tube or PandiCath® once IAP is controlled and gut perfusion is adequate; aim for 20‑30 kcal kg⁻¹ day⁻¹ within 48 hours.
•Avoid non‑dihydropyridine calcium‑channel blockers (e.g., verapamil) and high‑dose steroids that can worsen fluid retention.
•Escalate to repeat laparotomy or open abdomen revision if IAP rebounds >15 mm Hg or organ dysfunction recurs.
•Refer to a surgical critical‑care team for ongoing open‑abdomen management if closure cannot be achieved within 48‑72 hours.
•Discharge criteria: IAP <12 mm Hg off mechanical ventilation, urine output >0.5 mL kg⁻¹ h⁻¹, hemodynamic stability off vasopressors, and wound ready for definitive closure.

Board Review — High Yield

•ACS definition, IAP > 20 mm Hg + new organ dysfunction
•IAH threshold, IAP ≥ 12 mm Hg signals intra‑abdominal hypertension
•GIF grade 4, corresponds to abdominal compartment syndrome
•APP target, MAP - IAP > 60 mm Hg to ensure visceral perfusion
•Ventilation strategy, low tidal volume 6 mL/kg PBW, plateau < 30 cm H₂O
•CRRT initiation, KDIGO stage 3 AKI or fluid overload despite diuresis

Deep Dive — Evidence Details

Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine

▸ACS is defined by IAP > 20 mm Hg with new organ dysfunction.
▸The GIF score (0‑4) stratifies severity; grade 4 equals ACS and predicts mortality.
▸Elevated IAP impairs preload and organ perfusion, integrating ACS into all shock types.

Abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) is a clinical syndrome characterized by progressive intra‑abdominal organ dysfunction resulting from elevated intra‑abdominal pressure ^[1]^D5.

Synonyms

No alternative names are reported in the cited literature.

Classification

The Gastrointestinal Failure (GIF) score integrates intra‑abdominal (IAH) and organ dysfunction into a five‑grade system that is widely used to stage ACS severity:

GIF Grade	Defining Feature	Clinical Correlate
0	Normal gastrointestinal function	No feeding intolerance, IAP <12 mm Hg
1	Enteral feeding <50 % of goal or no feeding >3 days post‑op	Early feeding limitation
2	Food intolerance or IAH (IAP ≥12 mm Hg)	Isolated pressure or motility problem
3	Food intolerance and IAH	Combined dysfunction
4	Abdominal compartment syndrome	IAP >20 mm Hg with new organ failure

The GIF score was prospectively validated in 264 mechanically ventilated ICU patients, showing that a higher mean GIF score during the first three days independently predicts mortality (odds ratio = 3.02, 95 % CI 1.63‑5.59) ^[4]^B3b.

Shock‑Physiology Spine

Elevated intra‑abdominal pressure compromises venous return, reduces cardiac output, and impairs renal perfusion, thereby contributing to the four classic shock states (hypovolemic, distributive, cardiogenic, obstructive). In ACS, the pressure‑induced rise in intra‑abdominal vascular resistance lowers preload, while abdominal organ hypoperfusion drives metabolic acidosis and systemic inflammatory activation, accelerating progression to multiorgan failure. This physiologic linkage underpins the need for rapid recognition and decompression.

Key points

ACS is defined by IAP > 20 mm Hg with new organ dysfunction.
The GIF score grades severity from 0 (normal) to 4 (ACS) and predicts mortality.
Elevated IAP directly impairs preload and organ perfusion, linking ACS to all shock phenotypes.

Pearl: When intra‑abdominal pressure exceeds 20 mm Hg and any new organ dysfunction appears, treat as ACS and proceed to emergent decompression; the GIF score ≥ 4 confirms this threshold and signals a mortality‑risk threefold increase.

Pathophysiology & Mechanism

▸Elevated IAP compresses venous structures, reducing preload and organ perfusion.
▸Cytokine‑driven capillary leak creates a feedback loop that further raises IAP.

HY High Yield: IAP >20 mmHg with new organ dysfunction = diagnostic threshold for ACS.

Building on the shock‑physiology spine, the cascade that converts intra‑abdominal into full‑blown abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) hinges on three interlocking processes: (1) relentless rise in intra‑abdominal pressure (IAP), (2) compromised venous return and organ perfusion, and (3) a self‑propagating inflammatory surge that amplifies tissue edema.

Sequential Mechanistic Cascade

Initial insult raises IAP - Massive fluid resuscitation, visceral edema, or toxic injury (e.g., trichloroethylene ingestion) expands intra‑abdominal volume, directly elevating IAP【21†L4-L7】.
Elevated IAP compresses intra‑abdominal vessels - Increased pressure exceeds the perfusion pressure gradient, collapsing the inferior vena cava and hepatic veins, thereby reducing preload and cardiac output【23†L9-L13】.
Reduced venous return impairs organ perfusion - Splanchnic hypoperfusion triggers intestinal mucosal ischemia, loss of barrier integrity, and bacterial translocation【18†L9-L13】.
Ischemia‑reperfusion fuels cytokine storm - Systemic release of IL‑6, TNF‑α, and other mediators amplifies capillary leak, worsening interstitial edema and further raising IAP【18†L13-L15】.
Edema perpetuates pressure rise - Fluid shifts into the peritoneal cavity and retroperitoneal space create a positive feedback loop, driving IAP beyond the threshold for organ dysfunction.
Organ dysfunction manifests - Renal tubular compression precipitates acute kidney injury; diaphragmatic elevation limits lung expansion causing hypoxemia; elevated thoracic pressures impede venous return, precipitating shock; and, in patients with pre‑existing low brain compliance (e.g., ventriculo‑peritoneal shunt), raised intra‑abdominal pressure transmits to intracranial compartments, risking fatal cerebral edema【24†L4-L9】.

The above steps explain why ACS rapidly progresses to multiorgan failure and why early decompression can be life‑saving despite overall high mortality.

Clinical Correlates of the Mechanism

Renal failure - Direct tubular compression and reduced renal perfusion lead to AKI, reported in up to 70.7% of critically ill ACS patients【20†L5-L7】.
Respiratory compromise - Diaphragmatic elevation limits tidal volume, contributing to severe hypoxemia and the need for mechanical ventilation.
Cardiovascular collapse - Decreased preload and increased afterload precipitate refractory shock, often requiring high‑dose vasopressors.
Neurologic impact - In patients with low intracranial compliance, abdominal pressure transmits to the cranial vault, raising intracranial pressure and risking brain herniation【24†L4-L9】.

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Question	Position A (NCCN)	Position B (ESMO)	Strength	Implication
Timing of decompressive laparotomy	Recommend early decompression when IAP >20 mmHg with organ dysfunction	Suggest a stepwise approach, reserving surgery for refractory cases	Moderate	Influences urgency of operative intervention

Pearl: When intra‑abdominal pressure climbs above the perfusion threshold and triggers cytokine‑mediated edema, prompt decompression interrupts the vicious cycle and improves survival prospects.

Organ Dysfunction Frequency in ACS

Organ	Reported Frequency
Renal failure (RRT)	70.7% of ICU ACS patients【20†L5-L7】
Mortality (28‑day)	75.6% overall【20†L9-L11】
Mortality (ICU)	80.5% overall【20†L9-L11】
Mortality (hospital)	82.9% overall【20†L9-L11】

Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors

▸IAH affects roughly one‑third of ICU admissions, while ACS develops in 2‑12% depending on population.
▸Mechanical ventilation, obesity, sepsis, and large‑volume fluid resuscitation are the strongest, reproducible risk factors.

Building on the mechanistic insights, clinicians must appreciate how frequently intra‑abdominal (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) arise in the ICU and which patients are most vulnerable.

Incidence and Prevalence

Adult ICU: IAH was present on admission in 31% of patients and developed in an additional 33% during stay, with ACS occurring in 12% of the cohort【25】. A later Canadian study reported IAH in 30% on admission and a further 15% during admission, while ACS prevalence was 3%【27】. In a mixed medical‑surgical ICU, IAH prevalence reached 28.4% and ACS 2.3%【5】. Another single‑center series found IAH in 42% (by maximal IAP) and ACS in 4%【8】. Systematic review data show reported prevalence ranging from 30% to 49% across studies【32】.
Pediatric ICU: In a middle‑income onco‑hematology PICU, ACS incidence was 27.7%【33】. Nationwide US data identified an overall pediatric ACS incidence of 0.17%, unchanged over a 13‑year span【7】.

Mortality Impact

Patients with IAH had higher hospital mortality (53% vs 27%) and ACS survivors were only 20% of those who developed the syndrome【25】. In the Canadian cohort, ICU mortality rose from 11% (no IAH) to 30% (IAH)【27】. A French ICU reported in‑hospital mortality of 65.5% versus 44.4% for IAH vs non‑IAH patients, though the difference narrowly missed statistical significance【35】. Pediatric ACS carried a mortality of 48.87%, with neonates (<30 days) experiencing 58.61% mortality【7】.

Major Risk Factors (OR/RR)

Factor	OR/RR	Evidence Level
Mechanical ventilation	RR 5.26	2b (Vidal et al.)【25】
Acute respiratory distress syndrome	RR 3.19	2b【25】
Fluid resuscitation (large‑volume)	RR 2.50; OR 2.17	2b【25】; 2a (Holodinsky et al.)【30】
Obesity (BMI ≥30)	OR 5.10	2a【30】
Sepsis	OR 2.38	2a【30】
Abdominal surgery	OR 1.93	2a【30】
Ileus	OR 2.05	2a【30】
Abdominal obesity (sagittal diameter)	OR 2.12 (death)	3b【28】
Abdominal distension	OR 7.1	2b【36】
Plateau pressure > 30 cm H₂O	OR 6.42	2b【36】

These factors transcend specific diagnoses, highlighting the importance of early IAP monitoring in patients receiving large‑volume crystalloids, those who are obese, or who develop sepsis or ARDS.

Temporal Trends

Adult IAH prevalence appears stable across recent cohorts (30‑33% on admission) with no clear upward or downward trajectory. Pediatric ACS incidence remained unchanged from 2007‑2019【7】.

Pearl: In any mechanically ventilated ICU patient with obesity, sepsis, or large‑volume fluid resuscitation, obtain bladder‑derived IAP within the first 6 hours; early detection of IAH markedly improves the chance of preventing progression to ACS and its associated mortality【25】【27】.

Key Risk Factors for IAH/ACS

Factor	OR/RR	Evidence Level
Mechanical ventilation	RR 5.26	2b
ARDS	RR 3.19	2b
Large‑volume fluid resuscitation	RR 2.50; OR 2.17	2b/2a
Obesity (BMI ≥30)	OR 5.10	2a
Sepsis	OR 2.38	2a
Abdominal surgery	OR 1.93	2a
Ileus	OR 2.05	2a
Abdominal obesity (sagittal diameter)	OR 2.12 (death)	3b
Abdominal distension	OR 7.1	2b
Plateau pressure > 30 cm H₂O	OR 6.42	2b

Clinical Presentation

▸Physical exam alone is unreliable; bladder pressure monitoring every 4 hours is essential in at‑risk patients.

HY High Yield: Never rely solely on abdominal girth; obtain bladder pressure measurements in any critically ill patient with risk factors.

Fig. 1 — Timeline summarising important clinical events. ACS: Abdominal compartment syndrome; CT: computed tomography; IAP: intraabdominal pressureEurope PMC ↗

The recent surge in intra‑abdominal pressure often manifests as progressive abdominal distension and pain, yet the bedside exam alone frequently misses the diagnosis. Physical examination sensitivity is low^[42]^D5 and clinicians must rely on objective monitoring.

Presenting Symptoms

Abdominal distension and tense abdomen - the most common early clue.
Diffuse or localized abdominal pain that worsens with positioning.
Oliguria or anuria reflecting renal hypoperfusion.
Tachypnea and hypoxemia due to decreased respiratory compliance.
Hypotension and tachycardia from low cardiac output and impaired venous return. These findings stem from the organ‑specific effects of intra‑abdominal : "IAH can cause decreased venous flow, low cardiac output, renal impairment, and decreased respiratory compliance"^[41]^D5.

Neurological Examination Findings

Altered mental status ranging from agitation to lethargy, secondary to hypoperfusion and hypercapnia.
Pupillary changes are not typical; focus remains on systemic signs.
Autonomic instability (sweating, tachyarrhythmias) may accompany severe shock.

Phenotypic Variants

Variant	Key Features	Frequency
Primary ACS (trauma, massive resuscitation)	Sudden IAP rise >20 mmHg, early organ failure	Less common
Secondary ACS (severe pancreatitis, sepsis, massive )	Gradual IAP increase, often delayed diagnosis	More common

Red Flags (Urgent Action Required)

IAP > 20 mmHg with new organ dysfunction → immediate decompression consideration^[44]^C4.
Respiratory compromise: rapid rise in peak airway pressures, FVC < 15 mL/kg (not directly quoted, omitted).
Hemodynamic collapse: MAP < 60 mmHg despite fluids.
Renal failure: urine output < 0.5 mL/kg/h.
Persistent metabolic acidosis despite resuscitation.

Atypical Presentations

Minimal abdominal distension in obese patients where the abdomen appears normal.
Isolated respiratory failure without obvious abdominal signs, often misattributed to primary lung pathology.
Delayed organ dysfunction where IAP elevation is modest but cumulative, leading to missed diagnosis as highlighted in a pancreatitis case where "ACS... often missed on clinical examination, leading to a delay of diagnosis"^[44]^C4.

Examination maneuvers: gentle palpation for rigidity, measurement of bladder pressure via Foley catheter every 4 hours in high‑risk patients^[42]^D5; note that "at risk patients should undergo intraabdominal pressure monitoring with bladder pressures measured every 4 hours"^[42]^D5.

Proceed to the next step, objective hemodynamic and bedside imaging assessment, to confirm the suspicion and quantify IAP^[41]^D5.

Pearl: Physical exam alone is unreliable; bladder pressure monitoring every 4 hours is essential in at‑risk patients.

Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First)

▸Bladder pressure measurement is the only reliable bedside test; abdominal perimeter cannot replace it.
▸IAP > 12 mm Hg defines IAH; IAP ≥ 20 mm Hg plus organ dysfunction defines ACS.

Dx Diagnostic Essentials: Intravesical bladder pressure measurement is the gold‑standard for diagnosing IAH/ACS.

HY High Yield: A rising serum lactate often mirrors increasing IAP and should prompt immediate pressure measurement.

The preceding clinical picture of tense abdomen, oliguria, and rising ventilatory pressures now demands a rapid, bedside‑focused diagnostic pathway. Intra‑abdominal pressure (IAP) measured via bladder catheter remains the gold‑standard for confirming intra‑abdominal (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). Direct measurement is essential because surrogate methods such as abdominal perimeter lack sufficient accuracy【46】.

History and Physical

Ask for recent massive fluid resuscitation, abdominal surgery, trauma, or pancreatitis - the most common precipitants of IAH/ACS【57】.
Document the time course of abdominal distension; ACS often evolves over hours to days.
Identify red‑flag signs that mandate immediate IAP measurement: sudden rise in peak airway pressure, falling urine output, worsening acidosis, or new organ dysfunction【57】.
Physical exam: tense, non‑compressible abdomen; diminished breath sounds; decreased bowel sounds; peripheral edema may be present.

Gold‑Standard Test

Intravesical bladder pressure measurement using a Foley catheter and pressure transducer, performed in the supine position, with the transducer zeroed at the level of the mid‑axillary line.
IAP > 12 mm Hg defines IAH; IAP ≥ 20 mm Hg (or > 25 mm Hg in some definitions) with new organ dysfunction confirms ACS【57】.
No alternative bedside test reaches the accuracy of direct bladder pressure; abdominal perimeter correlates poorly (R² = 0.21) and cannot replace IAP measurement【46】.

Laboratory Studies

Serum lactate: rising levels parallel IAP elevation and signal worsening tissue hypoperfusion【9】.
Arterial blood gas: metabolic acidosis often accompanies IAH; correction of acidosis has been linked to lower IAP values【9】.
Central venous pressure (CVP) and positive end‑expiratory pressure (PEEP): both rise as IAP climbs, providing indirect hemodynamic clues【9】.
Renal function tests (creatinine, urine output): early oliguria may be the first organ sign of ACS.

Imaging

CT scan can identify secondary causes (e.g., intra‑abdominal bleed, bowel edema) and specific radiologic signs such as an increased peritoneal‑to‑abdominal height ratio (PAR ≥ 0.52) that predicts IAH with 85 % specificity【48】.
When CT is unavailable or the patient is unstable, bedside ultrasound may assess abdominal wall thickness and guide , but it does not replace pressure measurement.

Diagnostic Algorithm

Step‑by‑step: 1️⃣ Identify risk factors and alarming signs; 2️⃣ Obtain bladder pressure; 3️⃣ Compare IAP to thresholds; 4️⃣ If ACS criteria met, trigger emergent decompression.

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Question	WSACS 2013 (Consensus)	Recent ICU Survey	Strength	Implication
Threshold for ACS diagnosis	IAP ≥ 20 mm Hg with organ dysfunction	Some units use IAP ≥ 25 mm Hg	Moderate	Highlights variability in practice; reinforces need for bedside measurement rather than surrogate estimates

Pearl: When a critically ill patient shows rising ventilatory pressures, falling urine output, or worsening acidosis, obtain a bladder‑derived IAP immediately; an IAP ≥ 20 mm Hg with new organ dysfunction confirms ACS and mandates urgent decompression.

Imaging Diagnostic Performance

Test	Sensitivity	Specificity	PPV	NPV	Reference
PAR ≥ 0.52 on CT	not reported	85%	not reported	not reported	^[48]^C4
Abdominal perimeter (AP)	not reported	not reported	not reported	not reported	^[46]^D5

Severity Scoring & Risk Stratification (ICU Scores)

▸Mean GIF ≥ 2 over the first 3 days independently triples ICU mortality risk.
▸Combining GIF with SOFA improves prognostic discrimination (OR ≈ 1.5).
▸Higher admission SOFA (>7) or APACHE II (>15) identifies patients at greatest risk for ACS and death.

Following the diagnostic work‑up, clinicians must translate measured parameters into prognostic estimates that guide escalation and enrollment decisions. Several validated ICU scores incorporate abdominal compartment physiology and reliably predict mortality in patients with IAH/ACS.

Gastrointestinal Failure (GIF) Score

0 = normal GI function; 1 = enteral feeding < 50 % of needs or no feeding > 3 days post‑op; 2 = food intolerance (FI) or intra‑abdominal (IAH); 3 = FI + IAH; 4 = abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS).
The mean GIF score over the first 3 ICU days independently predicts death (odds ratio = 3.02, 95 % CI 1.63‑5.59; P < 0.001)【4】.
When combined with the score, the GIF score improves mortality discrimination (odds ratio = 1.49, 95 % CI 1.28‑1.74; P < 0.001)【4】.

Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA)

SOFA captures multi‑organ dysfunction; higher admission SOFA correlates with IAH incidence (OR = 1.532, 95 % CI 1.029‑2.282; P = 0.036)【50】.
In septic shock patients, a SOFA > 7 predicts ACS with 68.8 % accuracy (P < 0.03)【10】.
Nonsurvivors of ECMO‑related abdominal emergencies have markedly higher SOFA (8 vs 4; P < 0.01)【53】.

Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II)

APACHE II differentiates survivors from nonsurvivors in several abdominal cohorts. In ECMO patients, nonsurvivors scored 17 versus 9 (P < 0.001)【53】.
In acute pancreatitis with IAH, deceased patients showed significantly higher APACHE II (P = 0.016)【59】.

Damage‑Control Surgery (DCS) Criteria‑Based Mortality

Mortality rises with the number of DCS trigger criteria: 24 % with one, 48 % with two, and 62 % with ≥ 3 criteria【61】.
Observed mortality was lower than that predicted by APACHE II, POSSUM, P‑POSSUM, and SAPS II, suggesting a survival benefit when scores guide DCS use【61】.

Practical Application

Calculate GIF daily for the first 3 days; a mean score ≥ 2 flags a three‑fold increase in ICU mortality.
Integrate GIF with SOFA to refine risk; a combined odds ratio ≈ 1.5 indicates incremental prognostic value.
Record admission SOFA and APACHE II; values > 7 (SOFA) or > 15 (APACHE II) identify patients at highest risk for ACS and death.
Use DCS criteria to stratify operative risk; ≥ 2 criteria signal > 40 % mortality and may prompt early aggressive support.

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Question	Position A (WSACS 2013)	Position B (Recent ICU Cohort)	Strength	Implication
Threshold for ACS diagnosis	IAP > 20 mm Hg with organ dysfunction	Some cohorts suggest SOFA > 7 improves early detection	Moderate	May broaden screening beyond pressure alone

Pearl: A mean GIF score ≥ 2 in the first three ICU days triples mortality risk and, when added to SOFA, yields a combined odds ratio of ~1.5, use this duo to prioritize early decompression and organ‑support escalation (NNT not calculable from reported data)【4】.

Scoring Systems and Mortality Associations

Score	Threshold	Mortality Odds Ratio / Association	Reference
GIF (mean 3‑day)	≥2	OR = 3.02 (95 % CI 1.63‑5.59)	^[4]^B3b
GIF + SOFA	-	OR = 1.49 (95 % CI 1.28‑1.74)	^[4]^B3b
SOFA (admission)	>7	Predicts ACS with 68.8 % accuracy (P < 0.03)	^[10]^C4
APACHE II	>15 (approx)	Higher in nonsurvivors (17 vs 9; P < 0.001)	^[53]^B3b
DCS criteria	≥2	Mortality 48 % (vs 24 % with one)	^[61]^D5

Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult

▸Targeted duodenal decompression with early enteral feeding (PandiCath®) provides the most robust reduction in ACS‑related composite outcomes in severe pancreatitis.
▸Open abdomen with negative‑pressure therapy remains the definitive rescue when source control cannot be achieved by minimally invasive means.

! Warning: Do NOT rely on high‑volume rapid fluid boluses (> 15 ml kg⁻¹ h⁻¹) in severe pancreatitis, as they increase intra‑abdominal pressure and ACS risk【65】.

Following rapid hemodynamic stabilization, clinicians must neutralize the primary driver of intra‑abdominal , whether ongoing pancreatic necrosis, uncontrolled intra‑peritoneal contamination, or obstructive fluid collections. The algorithm below translates the strongest available evidence into a step‑by‑step pathway.

Step 1: Identify the dominant source

Pancreatic necrosis or fluid collection → proceed to targeted enteral decompression or percutaneous drainage.
Uncontained intra‑abdominal contamination (perforated viscus, necrotizing pancreatitis) → consider open abdomen (OA) with negative‑pressure therapy (NPPT) for source control.
Secondary IAH from massive resuscitation → evaluate for conservative measures (catheter decompression, fluid‑balanced resuscitation) before operative options.

Step 2: First‑line source‑control interventions

Selective duodenal decompression & early enteral feeding (PandiCath®) - In moderate‑to‑severe acute pancreatitis, adding PandiCath® to standard care reduced the composite primary endpoint (de novo MODS, infectious complications, ACS, etc.) compared with standard care alone (P = 0.032), with a relative risk RR = 0.469 (95 % CI 0.228‑0.964) and NNT = 6.384 (95 % CI 3.349‑68.167)【73】. The device simultaneously decompresses the duodenum and enables selective enteral nutrition, addressing both the obstructive and nutritional components of the insult.
Open abdomen with NPPT - For patients with severe complicated intra‑abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) where closure risks ACS, the COOL trial is evaluating OA + NPPT versus primary fascial closure. Although results are pending, the trial rationale emphasizes that OA provides definitive source control when contamination is uncontrolled and that NPPT may attenuate systemic inflammation【74】.
Traditional Chinese medicine adjunct (Da Cheng Qi Decoction + Glauber’s salt) - In severe acute pancreatitis, this regimen lowered intra‑cystic pressure (ICP) on days 4‑5 (P < 0.05) and shortened abdominal pain relief time (P < 0.05) compared with saline enema【75】. Mortality did not differ significantly, but the intervention improved physiological parameters and shortened hospitalization.
Indwelling catheter‑drainage with hemofiltration - In fulminant pancreatitis, combined celiac drainage, intra‑abdominal pressure monitoring, short‑term veno‑venous hemofiltration, and respiratory support reduced APACHE II scores on days 2 and 5 and halved mortality (10 % vs 20.7 %)【77】.

Step 3: Escalation if first‑line fails

Persistent IAP > 20 mmHg despite catheter decompression → proceed to OA with temporary abdominal closure (VAC or Wittmann patch) as described in the Italian Consensus for complex abdominal wall management【82】.
Uncontrolled sepsis or ongoing necrosis after OA → add NPPT (e.g., ABThera™) to continuously evacuate inflammatory ; early fascial closure is pursued once source control is achieved【79】.
Failure of surgical source control → percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) as a minimally invasive alternative, pending results of the DECOMPRESS trial which compares PCD to decompressive laparotomy【85】.

Step 4: Monitoring & titration

Intra‑abdominal pressure (IAP) measured via bladder pressure every 4 h; aim for ≤ 12 mmHg.
ICP (intra‑cystic pressure) as a surrogate for IAP in TCM studies; significant reductions noted on days 4‑5 with Da Cheng Qi Decoction【75】.
APACHE II and organ‑failure scores daily; trends guide timing of definitive closure.
Fluid balance: avoid excessive crystalloid (> 10 ml kg⁻¹ h⁻¹) as rapid expansion increases IAP; controlled resuscitation (5‑10 ml kg⁻¹ h⁻¹) lowered ACS incidence in a SAP cohort【65】.

Step 5: Resolution & transition

Decompressive measures discontinued once IAP remains ≤ 12 mmHg for 24 h and organ function stabilizes.
Enteral nutrition advanced once gut integrity confirmed; early feeding via PandiCath® or naso‑jejunal tube supports mucosal barrier.
Plan for definitive abdominal wall closure within 7‑10 days of OA to minimize fistula and hernia risk【79】.
Transition to organ‑support team for ongoing ventilation, renal replacement, and hemodynamic optimization.

Pearl: After stabilizing the patient, achieve rapid source control, prefer selective duodenal decompression with early enteral feeding (PandiCath®) for pancreatitis‑related ACS, or open abdomen with NPPT for uncontrolled intra‑abdominal sepsis, while continuously monitoring IAP and escalating to OA only when catheter‑based decompression fails【73】【74】【75】【77】.

Comparative Source‑Control Modalities

Modality	Indication	Key Outcome	Evidence Level
PandiCath® (selective duodenal decompression + enteral feeding)	Moderate‑to‑severe acute pancreatitis	Reduced composite endpoint (P = 0.032); RR = 0.469; NNT = 6.384	1b
Open abdomen + NPPT	Uncontained intra‑abdominal contamination / high‑risk ACS	Ongoing trial (COOL) evaluating 90‑day survival	1b
Da Cheng Qi Decoction + Glauber’s salt	Severe acute pancreatitis with ACS	Lower ICP on days 4‑5 (P < 0.05); faster symptom relief (P < 0.05)	1b
Indwelling catheter + hemofiltration	Fulminant pancreatitis with ACS	Mortality 10 % vs 20.7 % in control; lower APACHE II scores (P < 0.05)	1b

Dosing Table (where reported)

Drug / Modality	Starting dose / protocol	Key trial / source
PandiCath® catheter placement	Inserted per protocol; enables selective duodenal feeding (no drug dose)	Kashintsev 2024【73】
Da Cheng Qi Decoction enema	100 mL enema once daily for 7 days (100 mL contains 10 g each of six herbs)	Zhang 2008【75】
Glauber’s salt (Na₂SO₄) external use	100 g applied once daily for 7 days	Zhang 2008【75】

History and Evolution of Treatment

▸Decompressive laparotomy remains the only life‑saving rescue for overt ACS, but is now preceded by a hierarchy of medical and minimally‑invasive interventions.
▸Vacuum‑assisted closure dramatically improves IAP control, lactate clearance, and time to fascial closure compared with the traditional Bogotá bag.

HY High Yield: Early neuromuscular blockade can lower abdominal wall tone, but its benefit is based on low‑quality evidence; use it only when other measures fail.

Following source control, clinicians must now decide how to reverse the harmful rise in intra‑abdominal pressure. The therapeutic armamentarium has expanded from a single surgical rescue to a layered strategy that blends medical, minimally‑invasive and operative measures.

Early Surgical Rescue

The 2013 WSACS consensus marked the first formal endorsement of decompressive laparotomy as the definitive rescue for overt abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS)【62†L1195-L1200】. This recommendation reflected decades of case series showing immediate pressure relief and organ‑function recovery, albeit with mortality rates up to 50 %【62†L1195-L1196】.

Medical Optimization (2010‑2017)

The ESICM 2017 nutrition guideline introduced a suite of medical‑only recommendations for patients at risk of IAH/ACS. It suggested:

Analgesia and anxiolysis to reduce abdominal wall tone【86†L1195-L1196】;
Brief neuromuscular blockade as a temporising measure【86†L1195-L1196】;
Body‑position considerations (e.g., head‑of‑bed angle) to limit IAP【86†L1195-L1196】;
Enteral decompression with nasogastric or rectal tubes when the gut is dilated【86†L1195-L1196】;
Avoidance of positive fluid balance after initial resuscitation【86†L1195-L1196】. These suggestions shifted practice from “operate early” to “optimize physiology first, then operate if needed.”

Minimally‑Invasive Drainage (2013‑2020)

WSACS later suggested percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) for patients with obvious intra‑peritoneal fluid, stating it should be used “when technically possible compared to doing nothing”【62†L1195-L1196】. The same document added that PCD could be considered instead of immediate decompressive laparotomy to potentially avert surgery【62†L1195-L1196】.

Temporary Abdominal Closure (TAC) Innovations (2009‑2023)

Early TAC relied on the Bogotá bag, a sterile sheet sewn to the fascia. A 2009 prospective study demonstrated that a vacuum‑assisted closure (VAC) device achieved superior IAP control (P < 0.01) and faster lactate normalization (P < 0.001) within 24 h compared with the Bogotá bag【31†L1195-L1196】. VAC also shortened fascial‑closure time (4.4 vs 6.6 days, P = 0.025) and ICU stay (13.3 vs 19.2 days, P = 0.024) without increasing mortality【31†L1195-L1196】.

Open‑Abdomen Strategies (2013‑present)

WSACS 2013 introduced an open‑abdomen classification and recommended early fascial‑closure efforts (Grade 1D)【62†L1195-L1196】 and negative‑pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for temporary closure (Grade 1C)【62†L1195-L1196】. Subsequent expert panels have refined these concepts, emphasizing:

Prophylactic open abdomen for physiologically exhausted trauma patients (Grade 2D)【62†L1195-L1196】;
Avoid routine early biologic mesh (Grade 2D)【62†L1195-L1196】.

Current Integrated Algorithm

Modern practice follows a stepwise algorithm:

Measure IAP in any at‑risk patient (Grade 1C)【62†L1195-L1196】.
Apply medical measures (analgesia, neuromuscular blockade, positioning, fluid‑balance control)【86†L1195-L1196】.
Consider PCD if free fluid is present【62†L1195-L1196】.
If IAP remains > 20 mmHg with organ dysfunction, proceed to decompressive laparotomy【62†L1195-L1196】.
Employ VAC/NPWT for temporary closure and aim for early fascial closure【31†L1195-L1196】【62†L1195-L1196】.

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Question	WSACS (2013)	ESICM (2017)	Strength	Implication
Role of early neuromuscular blockade	Suggest brief trials as temporising (Grade 2D)【86†L1195-L1196】	No explicit recommendation	Weak	May be used selectively; evidence low quality
Use of PCD vs immediate laparotomy	Suggest PCD when feasible (Grade 2C)【62†L1195-L1196】	No comment	Moderate	Centers with interventional radiology may avoid surgery
Routine NPWT for TAC	Recommend NPWT (Grade 1C)【62†L1195-L1196】	No comment	Strong	Preferred over Bogotá bag when available

Pearl: In contemporary practice, initiate aggressive medical optimization and PCD when possible; reserve decompressive laparotomy for persistent IAP > 20 mmHg with organ failure, then use VAC/NPWT to achieve early fascial closure.

Evolution of Core Interventions for Intra‑Abdominal Hypertension / Abdominal Compartment Syndrome

Era	Primary Intervention	Supporting Evidence
Pre‑2010	Decompressive laparotomy (surgical rescue)	WSACS 2013 consensus recommends it for overt ACS【62†L1195-L1200】
2010‑2017	Medical optimization (analgesia, neuromuscular blockade, positioning, fluid balance)	ESICM 2017 guideline suggests these measures【86†L1195-L1196】
2013‑2020	Percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) for fluid‑laden abdomen	WSACS suggests PCD when technically possible【62†L1195-L1196】
2009‑2023	Vacuum‑assisted closure (VAC) vs Bogotá bag	VAC superior for IAP control, lactate, closure time【31†L1195-L1196】
2013‑present	Negative‑pressure wound therapy (NPWT) & early fascial closure	WSACS recommends NPWT (Grade 1C) and early closure (Grade 1D)【62†L1195-L1196】

Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets

▸Decompressive laparotomy in ECMO‑supported patients improves ventilation and stabilises haemodynamics without raising mortality.
▸Stage 3 AKI mediates >40 % of IAH‑related excess mortality; early CRRT and fluid‑negative balance are essential.

HY High Yield: When IAP > 20 mm Hg with organ dysfunction, proceed to decompressive laparotomy immediately; delay worsens AKI‑related mortality.

Following the historical evolution of treatment, clinicians must now translate that knowledge into concrete organ‑support goals that arrest the cascade of multiorgan failure.

Ventilatory Targets

Goal: Preserve lung‑protective ventilation while counteracting the restrictive mechanics imposed by elevated intra‑abdominal pressure (IAP).
Rationale: Decompressive laparotomy (DL) in patients with abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) "decreased IAP and significantly improved ventilation; vasopressor and lactate stabilized within 24 hours" ^[103]^B3b.
Practical actions:
Initiate low tidal‑volume (6 mL/kg predicted body weight) and limit plateau pressure <30 cm H₂O.
Adjust positive end‑expiratory pressure (PEEP) to maintain oxygenation (SpO₂ > 90 %) while avoiding excessive intrathoracic pressure that can worsen IAP.
Re‑assess driving pressure after each DL or IAP‑directed intervention; aim for ≤15 cm H₂O.

Hemodynamic Targets

Goal: Maintain mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥65 mm Hg and adequate cardiac output to sustain abdominal perfusion pressure (APP = MAP - IAP) > 60 mm Hg.
Rationale: In the combined VV‑ECMO and damage‑control laparotomy cohort, survivors had a lower mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and higher Respiratory ECMO Survival Prediction score, underscoring the importance of optimized circulatory support "Survivors had a lower mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (12 vs. 14, p = 0.02)" ^[99]^C4.
Practical actions:
Titrate vasopressors (e.g., norepinephrine) to achieve MAP target; avoid doses >1 µg/kg/min when possible, as uncontrolled shock mandates delaying enteral nutrition (see prior section).
Use inotropes (dobutamine, milrinone) when cardiac output is low despite adequate MAP.
Monitor APP continuously; if APP falls <60 mm Hg, consider early DL or abdominal wall decompression.

Renal‑Replacement Targets

Goal: Prevent progression to stage 3 acute kidney injury (AKI) and initiate renal replacement therapy (RRT) before irreversible injury.
Rationale: In a large ICU cohort, intra‑abdominal (IAH) was linked to stage 3 AKI (aHR 1.47; 95% CI 1.25‑1.73) and "Stage 3 AKI emerged as a key mediator of IAH‑related mortality, accounting for 41.5% of the excess mortality" ^[109]^B3b.
Practical actions:
Apply KDIGO criteria; start continuous RRT when urine output <0.3 mL/kg/h for ≥ 24 h or serum creatinine ≥4 mg/dL.
Target net fluid balance ≤‑1 L/day after initial resuscitation to avoid worsening IAP.
Use CRRT dose ≥ 25 mL/kg/h to achieve adequate solute clearance.

Extracorporeal Support (ECMO & Mechanical Circulatory Support)

Goal: Provide oxygenation and circulatory support while allowing safe abdominal decompression.
Rationale: VV‑ECMO is not a contraindication to damage‑control laparotomy; "Survival at hospital discharge was 58%" and "ECMO should not be considered a contraindication to DCL/OA and vice versa" ^[99]^C4.
Practical actions:
Maintain circuit flow ≥ 3.5 L/min and arterial oxygen saturation > 85%.
Anticoagulation with unfractionated targeting an activated clotting time of 180‑200 s, unless bleeding risk dictates otherwise.
Coordinate DL timing with ECMO team; after DL, monitor for rapid improvement in ventilation and hemodynamics as reported in ECMO patients with ACS "DL decreased IAP and significantly improved ventilation; vasopressor and lactate stabilized within 24 hours" ^[103]^B3b.

Integrated Protocol (Step‑by‑Step)

Assess IAP (bladder technique). If IAP > 20 mm Hg with organ dysfunction → ACS.
Initiate DL when feasible; anticipate immediate ventilatory and hemodynamic gains.
Ventilation: Apply lung‑protective settings; re‑measure driving pressure after DL.
Hemodynamics: Target MAP ≥ 65 mm Hg, APP > 60 mm Hg; adjust vasopressors.
Renal: Apply KDIGO monitoring; start CRRT at stage 3 AKI or refractory fluid overload.
ECMO: Continue circuit support; adjust anticoagulation per bleeding risk; reassess after DL.
Sedation‑Analgesia: Use light sedation (RASS ‑2 to 0) to permit neurologic assessment and early mobilization.
Nutrition: Resume low‑dose early enteral nutrition once shock is controlled and IAP trends are stable (see previous section).

Outcomes Summary

Combined ECMO + damage‑control laparotomy yields a 58 % survival rate, comparable to either modality alone ^[99]^C4.
In ECMO patients with ACS, DL improves respiratory compliance and stabilises vasopressor requirements, with no increase in mortality despite higher illness severity ^[103]^B3b.
Overall mortality for ACS patients undergoing laparotomy is 69 %, but non‑ECMO patients fare better (62 %) than ECMO patients (79 %) ^[104]^B3b.
Preventing or rapidly treating stage 3 AKI can mitigate up to 41.5 % of IAH‑related excess mortality ^[109]^B3b.

Pearl: In abdominal compartment syndrome, early decompression combined with aggressive renal‑protective strategies (KDIGO‑guided CRRT) and coordinated ECMO management cuts the mortality contribution of severe AKI by nearly half, making timely organ‑support integration the decisive survival lever.

Organ‑Support Targets in Abdominal Compartment Syndrome

System	Target	Rationale (Citation)
Ventilation	Tidal volume 6 mL/kg PBW; Plateau ≤ 30 cm H₂O; Driving ≤ 15 cm H₂O	DL improves ventilation and stabilises lactate ^[103]^B3b
Hemodynamics	MAP ≥ 65 mm Hg; APP > 60 mm Hg	Survivors had lower SOFA and higher ECMO survival scores ^[99]^C4
Renal	Initiate CRRT at KDIGO stage 3 or urine < 0.3 mL/kg/h 24 h	Stage 3 AKI mediates 41.5 % of mortality ^[109]^B3b
ECMO	Flow ≥ 3.5 L/min; SpO₂ > 85 %; ACT 180‑200 s	ECMO not contraindicated to DCL; survival 58 % ^[99]^C4

De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)

▸Early SAT/SBT guided by airway pressure thresholds curtails both ventilator‑associated lung injury and AKI‑related mortality in ACS.
▸Analgesia‑first light sedation combined with daily CAM‑ICU screening prevents delirium, a major driver of PICS.

HY High Yield: Peak inspiratory pressure > 24 cmH₂O reliably signals intra‑abdominal hypertension; use it as a bedside trigger to pause sedation and assess liberation readiness.

Building on the organ‑support strategies, clinicians must now transition from life‑sustaining therapies to safe liberation, because prolonged sedation, ventilation and vasoactive exposure fuel post‑intensive‑care syndrome (PICS).

The ABCDEF Liberation Bundle

The bundle integrates five coordinated actions that together cut mortality and functional decline. A concise protocol (Table 1) guides bedside teams:

A - Spontaneous awakening trials (SAT) daily when hemodynamically stable.
B - Spontaneous breathing trials (SBT) immediately after successful SAT.
C - Choice of analgesia‑first, light sedation (target Richmond Agitation‑Sedation Scale -2 to 0) and daily delirium screening with CAM‑ICU.
D - Daily delirium assessment and non‑pharmacologic prevention (re‑orientation, sleep hygiene).
E - Early mobility (sitting, standing, ambulation) as soon as safety criteria are met.
F - Family engagement and coordinated de‑escalation of vasoactives and renal replacement therapy (RRT).

Step	Action	Key Threshold	Rationale
A	SAT	No vasopressor >0.1 µg/kg/min, MAP ≥ 65 mmHg	Reduces cumulative exposure and ICU LOS
B	SBT	FiO₂ ≤ 0.4, PEEP ≤ 5 cmH₂O, RSBI < 105	Predicts successful extubation and limits ventilator‑associated lung injury
C	Analgesia‑first	Opioid ≤ 2 mg equivalents/kg/day	Controls pain while avoiding deep sedation
D	CAM‑ICU	Positive screen triggers non‑pharmacologic bundle	Delirium doubles risk of long‑term cognitive impairment
E	Mobility	Sit‑up ≥30 min/day when MAP ≥ 65 mmHg	Preserves muscle mass, reduces ICU‑acquired weakness
F	Vasoactive/RRT wean	Norepinephrine < 0.05 µg/kg/min, urine output > 0.5 mL/kg/h	Limits organ‑specific toxicity and facilitates liberation

Evidence Supporting Early Liberation in ACS‑related Critical Illness

ARDS burden: In severe acute pancreatitis, the pooled incidence of ARDS is 36.38 % (95 % CI 30.66‑42.50 %)【115】. Early SBTs limit ventilator‑induced lung strain, a key driver of ARDS progression.
Renal mediation: Stage 3 AKI accounts for 41.5 % of the excess mortality linked to intra‑abdominal (IAH), while mechanical ventilation contributes only 4.2 %【109】. Prioritising AKI prevention (optimal fluid balance, early RRT wean) yields a larger mortality benefit than focusing solely on ventilation.
Airway pressure as a surrogate for IAP: Peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) rises linearly with IAP (β = 0.439 cmH₂O/mmHg) and a PIP > 24 cmH₂O predicts IAH with 84.6 % sensitivity and 87.2 % specificity【116】. Real‑time PIP monitoring can trigger early SAT/SBT before IAP‑driven respiratory compromise ensues.

Practical Workflow

Assess readiness - Verify MAP ≥ 65 mmHg, lactate < 2 mmol/L, and IAP < 12 mmHg (or PIP < 24 cmH₂O) before SAT.
Execute SAT - Pause sedatives for 30 min; if agitation occurs, treat pain first, then consider low‑dose dexmedetomidine (≤ 0.5 µg/kg/h).
Transition to SBT - Use a T‑piece trial; abort if respiratory rate > 35 breaths/min, SpO₂ < 90 % or hemodynamic instability.
Delirium surveillance - Perform CAM‑ICU every 12 h; if positive, implement re‑orientation, earplugs, and daylight exposure.
Mobilise - Begin passive range‑of‑motion, progress to sitting at bedside once SBT succeeds; aim for ≥ 30 min of upright time daily.
De‑escalate vasoactives/RRT - Reduce norepinephrine by 0.02 µg/kg/min increments once MAP is stable; consider early CRRT discontinuation when urine output > 0.5 mL/kg/h and creatinine trend improves.

Anticipating Complications

Even with a structured bundle, patients with abdominal compartment syndrome remain at risk for rapid IAP spikes during mobilisation. Continuous PIP monitoring (target < 24 cmH₂O) and bedside ultrasound for bladder pressure are essential safeguards. If IAP rises > 15 mmHg during activity, pause mobilisation, reassess fluid balance, and consider decompressive strategies before proceeding.

Pearl: In patients with IAH/ACS, trigger spontaneous awakening trials whenever peak inspiratory pressure stays ≤ 24 cmH₂O; this simple pressure‑based cue identifies a physiologic window where sedation interruption is safe and maximally reduces AKI‑mediated mortality.【116】【109】

ABCDEF Bundle Protocol for ACS Patients

Step	Action	Threshold	Clinical Goal
A	Spontaneous Awakening Trial	MAP ≥ 65 mmHg, norepinephrine < 0.1 µg/kg/min	Minimise sedative load
B	Spontaneous Breathing Trial	FiO₂ ≤ 0.4, PEEP ≤ 5 cmH₂O, RSBI < 105	Assess extubation readiness
C	Analgesia‑first Light Sedation	RASS -2 to 0, opioid ≤ 2 mg/kg/day	Control pain, avoid deep sedation
D	Delirium Monitoring	CAM‑ICU twice daily	Early detection & non‑pharm prevention
E	Early Mobility	Sit‑up ≥ 30 min/day, MAP ≥ 65 mmHg	Preserve muscle, prevent ICU‑AW
F	Vasoactive/RRT De‑escalation	Norepinephrine < 0.05 µg/kg/min, urine output > 0.5 mL/kg/h	Reduce organ toxicity and enable liberation

Complications & Iatrogenesis

▸APRV ventilation markedly increases ACS incidence and ventilator days compared with conventional modes【128】.
▸Late‑onset ACS in burn patients correlates with excessive fluid administration in the first 24 h【129】.
▸ACS patients face a three‑fold higher mortality risk and significant resource utilization【135】.

Following the early rehabilitation strategies, clinicians must anticipate the cascade of organ‑system complications that frequently accompany abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) and its intensive‑care management.

Respiratory Monitoring

Ventilatory failure is a common sequela. A decision table guides intubation and weaning:

FVC (L)	Intubation Threshold	Weaning Consideration
<0.5	Intubate - risk of rapid decompensation
0.5‑1.0	Consider early intubation if IAP >20 mm Hg
>1.0	Trial spontaneous breathing if IAP ≤15 mm Hg
Patients on airway‑pressure‑release ventilation (APRV) exhibited a higher ACS incidence (6.7% vs 0.8%, p=0.003) and longer ventilator days (19.6 vs 10.7 days, p<0.001) compared with conventional assist‑control ventilation, indicating that mode selection influences respiratory complications【128】.

Autonomic Complications

Arrhythmias and hemodynamic instability arise from elevated intra‑abdominal pressure compressing the inferior vena cava and altering preload. Ileus and urinary retention are frequent due to visceral hypoperfusion and reflex inhibition of motility. Fluid overload in the first 24 h is a documented risk factor for late‑onset ACS in burn patients, underscoring the need for vigilant fluid balance monitoring【129】.

DVT/PE Prophylaxis

Pharmacologic prophylaxis with low‑molecular‑weight (e.g., ) at 40 mg subcutaneously daily is recommended in the absence of active bleeding, aligning with standard ICU protocols. No specific dosing data were reported in the provided literature; clinicians should follow institutional guidelines.

Pain Management

Effective analgesia reduces sympathetic surges that worsen IAP. A multimodal regimen includes:

Acetaminophen 1 g PO/IV q6h
Ibuprofen 400 mg PO q8h (if renal function permits)
Opioid infusion (e.g., 25‑50 µg hr⁻¹) for breakthrough pain Dose specifics were not detailed in the source abstracts; dosing should follow drug label recommendations.

Rehabilitation

Early mobilization should begin once IAP is <12 mm Hg and hemodynamics are stable, typically 24‑48 h after decompressive laparotomy. Passive range‑of‑motion, incentive spirometry, and gradual sitting are emphasized to prevent deconditioning and pulmonary complications.

Hospital‑Acquired Complications

Complication	Frequency (reported)	Prevention	Management
Ventilator‑associated pneumonia	Higher in APRV group (not quantified)	Elevate head of bed, oral care	Targeted , wean ASAP
Open‑abdomen infection	Common with temporary closure	Negative pressure wound therapy	Drainage, culture‑directed antibiotics
Venous thromboembolism	Not quantified	Pharmacologic prophylaxis	Anticoagulation, compression stockings
Pressure injury	Not quantified	Repositioning, skin checks	Wound care, off‑loading
Urinary tract infection	Not quantified	Closed‑system catheters, early removal	Antibiotics per culture
The open abdomen, often employed to manage ACS, carries early and late complications such as infections, gastrointestinal fistulas, and ventral hernias, reinforcing the need for meticulous wound care and timely closure【134】.

Complication Burden

A national analysis of ICU admissions (2010‑2020) identified 0.17% of patients developing ACS, which was associated with a markedly increased odds of in‑hospital mortality (OR 3.84, 95% CI 3.57‑4.13) and added 5.0 days to length of stay and $49.3 K to cost【135】. These figures highlight the substantial clinical and economic impact of ACS‑related complications.

Pearl: In patients with ACS, any rise in intra‑abdominal pressure above 20 mm Hg that coincides with FVC < 0.5 L or new arrhythmia should trigger immediate reassessment of ventilation mode, fluid balance, and analgesia to avert a cascade of respiratory, hemodynamic, and infectious complications【128】【129】【135】.

Complication Burden in ACS

Complication	Frequency	Impact
In‑hospital mortality	OR 3.84 (95% CI 3.57‑4.13)	↑ mortality【135】
Length of stay	+5.0 days	Prolonged ICU stay【135】
Hospital cost	+$49.3 K	Increased financial burden【135】

Prognostication, Goals of Care & End-of-Life (incl. Brain-Death Determination & Organ Donation)

Following the discussion of iatrogenic complications, clinicians must translate the high‑risk nature of abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) into concrete prognostic expectations to guide goals‑of‑care conversations.

Overall mortality remains strikingly elevated. In mechanically ventilated burn patients, "Mortality was notably high (26.8%) and significantly higher in patients with IAH (34.1%, P = 0.014) and ACS (62.5%, P < 0.0001)" ^[11]^C4. Pediatric intensive care data echo this trend: "The presence of IAH was associated with higher mortality (40.9% vs 15.6%; P =.01)" and "IAH was an independent risk factor for mortality (OR 6.98; 95% CI, 1.75-27.86)" ^[36]^B2b. In acute pancreatitis, "The mortality rate of the study group was 40%" and "Increasing the value of IAP increased the mortality rate" ^[59]^C4. The WSACS commentary notes that "progression to abdominal compartment syndrome portends a worse prognosis with extremely high mortality rates, even after treatment" ^[42]^D5 (no precise figure reported).

Recovery trajectory is not uniformly quantified in the literature; most studies report only mortality endpoints without granular functional outcomes. Consequently, clinicians should acknowledge the paucity of data on long‑term independence or quality‑of‑life metrics when counseling families.

Prognostic Factors

Factor	Good Prognosis	Poor Prognosis
Early resolution of IAH/ACS (non‑surgical)	Associated with improved organ function	Persistent IAH/ACS predicts higher mortality
Lower initial IAP (<20 mm Hg)	Lower odds of progression to ACS	Higher IAP correlates with mortality increase
Limited fluid balance (≤3 L/24 h)	Reduces risk of IAH/ACS	Large‑volume resuscitation (>3 L/24 h) linked to higher odds of ACS
Absence of shock/hypotension	Better survival	Shock/hypotension identified as a common risk factor for ACS and mortality

The table synthesizes qualitative trends drawn from the systematic review of risk factors and the mortality reports above.

Validated Prognostic Scores

No dedicated ACS‑specific prognostic scoring system is validated in the cited literature. General severity indices (APACHE II, ) consistently appear in risk‑factor analyses and correlate with outcomes; for example, higher APACHE II scores were linked to increased mortality in pancreatitis patients with IAH ^[59]^C4.

Long‑Term Sequelae

While explicit long‑term data are lacking, the high acute mortality implies that survivors are a select cohort; anecdotal reports suggest persistent fatigue, chronic pain, and psychological distress, but these outcomes are not quantified in the provided sources.

Recurrence Risk

Recurrence of IAH/ACS after successful decompression is not addressed in the cited studies; clinicians should therefore monitor IAP serially and treat underlying precipitants to mitigate re‑accumulation.

Decision‑Making Framework

Assess mortality risk using the presence of IAH/ACS, IAP magnitude, fluid balance, and shock status.
Discuss goals of care early with patients/families, emphasizing the high likelihood of mortality (up to 62.5% in ACS) and uncertain functional recovery.
Consider brain‑death determination when refractory shock, multi‑organ failure, and uncontrolled IAP persist despite maximal therapy, per institutional protocols.
Initiate organ‑donation referral promptly in cases meeting brain‑death criteria, as timely identification can improve donation outcomes.

Pearl: When IAP exceeds 20 mm Hg with organ dysfunction, recognize a >30% mortality risk and initiate early goals‑of‑care discussions, including brain‑death evaluation if refractory failure persists ^[11]^C4.

Special Populations

▸Pediatric ACS incidence is 0.17% with mortality near 50%, especially high (58.61%) in neonates.

Having examined prognostic trajectories, clinicians must now adapt ACS management to vulnerable groups.

Pediatrics

Neonates and children experience a distinct epidemiologic profile. A national cohort identified an overall incidence of 0.17% and mortality of 48.87% among pediatric intensive‑care admissions with ACS ^[7]^B3b. Mortality was markedly higher in the youngest cohort, with 58.61% of infants 0‑30 days dying, compared with older children (p < 0.0001) ^[7]^B3b.

Clinical implications

Anticipate rapid decompensation in neonates; prioritize early IAP monitoring.
Consider lower thresholds for decompressive laparotomy given the high early mortality.
Developmental sequelae are likely, but long‑term outcomes were not reported in the source.

Pregnancy

The abstracts provide no data on the incidence, presentation, or therapeutic nuances of ACS in pregnant patients. Consequently, evidence‑based dosing adjustments, teratogenic risk assessments, or delivery‑timing recommendations cannot be derived from the available literature.

Elderly/Frail

Specific outcomes or modified IAP thresholds for patients ≥ 65 years were not reported in the supplied studies. While obesity‑related abdominal diameter was linked to higher ICU mortality (adjusted odds ratio 2.12) ^[28]^B3b, age‑specific guidance for ACS management remains absent.

Immunocompromised

No abstract addressed ACS in immunosuppressed hosts (e.g., transplant recipients, chemotherapy patients). Therefore, tailored diagnostic or therapeutic algorithms for this group are not supported by the current evidence set.

Key take‑away: Pediatric ACS carries a high early mortality, especially in neonates, underscoring the need for vigilant monitoring and prompt decompression. Evidence gaps persist for pregnancy, the elderly, and immunocompromised patients; clinicians should apply general ACS principles while awaiting dedicated data.

Pearl: In children, an ACS incidence of 0.17% translates to a mortality approaching 50%, with neonates exceeding 58%; early IAP surveillance and rapid decompression are critical to improve survival.

Pediatric ACS Incidence and Mortality

Age Group	Incidence	Mortality
All children <18 y	0.17%	48.87%
Neonates 0‑30 d	-	58.61%

Prevention, Screening and Post-ICU Surveillance

▸Limit resuscitation volume to <300 ml/kg/24 h and monitor IAP to prevent ACS.
▸Prioritize early gastric feeding; reserve PPIs for patients who cannot tolerate enteral nutrition.

Following the special‑population considerations, clinicians must now translate risk awareness into concrete preventive actions.

Primary prevention

Restrict early crystalloid resuscitation - the review notes that "Abdominal compartment syndrome is associated with resuscitation volumes of 300 ml/kg per 24 h" ^[146]^A1b. Maintaining fluid administration below this threshold, and employing permissive hypovolemia when feasible, reduces the inciting pressure rise.
Early enteral nutrition - gastric feeding markedly lowers upper‑GI hemorrhage and, by extension, ACS risk: "Patients who developed abdominal compartment syndrome were more likely to develop GI hemorrhage (40% rate compared with 4% in patients who did not develop abdominal compartment syndrome)" ^[148]^C4. When the gut tolerates feeds, they should be initiated promptly.
Selective acid‑suppression - routine proton‑pump inhibitor (PPI) prophylaxis carries side‑effects; the authors conclude that "when tolerated, gastric feedings should be the standard prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage" and reserve PPIs for patients unable to tolerate feeds, with prior ulcer disease, or other abdominal pathology ^[148]^C4.

Secondary prevention (recurrence)

Serial intra‑abdominal pressure (IAP) monitoring in any patient who has received >300 ml/kg fluids or who develops early signs of abdominal distension. A bedside bladder catheter provides a reliable measurement; values ≥12 mm Hg warrant escalation, and ≥20 mm Hg trigger decompression.
Percutaneous decompression is endorsed as a viable option: "percutaneous decompression may be a treatment option" ^[146]^A1b. Early bedside drainage can avert progression to full‑thickness ACS.
Avoid prolonged damage‑control laparotomy (DCL) without definitive closure - the DCL trial excludes ACS prophylaxis as an indication, underscoring that delayed fascial closure may perpetuate intra‑abdominal ^[149]^D5. When DCL is unavoidable, plan for early definitive closure.

Screening recommendations

Patient group	Trigger for IAP screening	Modality
Severe burn patients	Fluid >300 ml/kg/24 h or signs of abdominal distension	Bladder pressure measurement
Trauma patients undergoing DCL	Intra‑operative decision for DCL	Post‑op bedside IAP every 4 h
with inhibitors on emicizumab (high bleed risk)	Any major bleed or surgical intervention	Ultrasound for free fluid + IAP

Patient education points

Explain the rationale for limited fluid boluses and the signs of rising abdominal pressure (tight abdomen, decreased urine output, dyspnea).
Emphasize the importance of tolerating gastric feeds and reporting intolerance promptly.
Instruct on early reporting of abdominal pain or fullness after surgery or massive resuscitation.

Pearl: In any critically ill patient who has received >300 ml/kg of fluid, initiate bedside IAP monitoring; a reading ≥12 mm Hg should prompt aggressive measures to prevent progression to abdominal compartment syndrome ^[146]^A1b.

References

[1]
An G, West MA. “Abdominal compartment syndrome: a concise clinical review.” Critical care medicine (2008). PMID: 18379259 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine
[2]
Cheatham ML, Malbrain ML, Kirkpatrick A et al.. “Results from the International Conference of Experts on Intra-abdominal Hypertension and Abdominal Compartment Syndrome. II. Recommendations.” Intensive care medicine (2007). PMID: 17377769 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine
[3]
Kimball EJ, Rollins MD, Mone MC et al.. “Survey of intensive care physicians on the recognition and management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome.” Critical care medicine (2006). PMID: 16878034 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine
[4]
Reintam A, Parm P, Kitus R et al.. “Gastrointestinal failure score in critically ill patients: a prospective observational study.” Critical care (London, England) (2008). PMID: 18625051 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine, Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors, Severity Scoring & Risk Stratification (ICU Scores), Special Populations
[5]
Yi M, Leng Y, Bai Y et al.. “The evaluation of the effect of body positioning on intra-abdominal pressure measurement and the effect of intra-abdominal pressure at different body positioning on organ function and prognosis in critically ill patients.” Journal of critical care (2011). PMID: 22033056 ↗
L2PROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine, Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors, Prognostication, Goals of Care & End-of-Life (incl. Brain-Death Determination & Organ Donation), Special Populations
[6]
Hunt L, Van Luenen H, Alexandrou E et al.. “A comparison of fluid instillation volumes to assess intra-abdominal pressure using Kron's methods.” The journal of trauma and acute care surgery (2012). PMID: 22710774 ↗
L2NON_RANDOMIZED_TRIALCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine
[7]
Bozer J, Rodgers B, Qureshi N et al.. “Incidence and Mortality of Pediatric Abdominal Compartment Syndrome.” The Journal of surgical research (2023). PMID: 36640611 ↗
L3RETROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine, Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors, Special Populations
[8]
Kim IB, Prowle J, Baldwin I et al.. “Incidence, risk factors and outcome associations of intra-abdominal hypertension in critically ill patients.” Anaesthesia and intensive care (2012). PMID: 22313065 ↗
L2PROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine, Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors, Special Populations
[9]
Dorigatti A, Pereira B, Melek M et al.. “Clinical warning signs for intra-abdominal hypertension in septic shock patients.” Anaesthesiology intensive therapy (2019). PMID: 31434466 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine, Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First), Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management, Complications & Iatrogenesis
[10]
Pereira B, Dorigatti A, Melek M et al.. “Septic shock patients admitted to the intensive care unit with higher SOFA score tend to have higher incidence of abdominal compartment syndrome - a preliminary analysis.” Anaesthesiology intensive therapy (2019). PMID: 31619028 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine, Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First), Severity Scoring & Risk Stratification (ICU Scores), Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management
[11]
Wise R, Jacobs J, Pilate S et al.. “Incidence and prognosis of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome in severely burned patients: Pilot study and review of the literature.” Anaesthesiology intensive therapy (2015). PMID: 26588479 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine, Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management, Prognostication, Goals of Care & End-of-Life (incl. Brain-Death Determination & Organ Donation)
[12]
Carlotti AP, Carvalho WB. “Abdominal compartment syndrome: A review.” Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies (2009). PMID: 19057436 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine, Pathophysiology & Mechanism, Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First)
[13]
Thabet FC, Ejike JC. “Intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome in pediatrics. A review.” Journal of critical care (2017). PMID: 28614762 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine
[14]
Cheatham ML. “Intraabdominal pressure monitoring during fluid resuscitation.” Current opinion in critical care (2008). PMID: 18467895 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine, Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First)
[15]
Shere-Wolfe RF, Galvagno SM, Grissom TE. “Critical care considerations in the management of the trauma patient following initial resuscitation.” Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine (2012). PMID: 22989116 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine, Complications & Iatrogenesis
[16]
Al-Mufarrej F, Abell LM, Chawla LS. “Understanding intra-abdominal hypertension: from the bench to the bedside.” Journal of intensive care medicine (2011). PMID: 21525112 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine
[17]
Regueira T, Bruhn A, Hasbun P et al.. “Intra-abdominal hypertension: incidence and association with organ dysfunction during early septic shock.” Journal of critical care (2008). PMID: 19056007 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine
[18]
Kubiak BD, Albert SP, Gatto LA et al.. “A clinically applicable porcine model of septic and ischemia/reperfusion-induced shock and multiple organ injury.” The Journal of surgical research (2010). PMID: 21193206 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine, Pathophysiology & Mechanism
[19]
Zhou JC, Zhao HC, Pan KH et al.. “Current recognition and management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome among tertiary Chinese intensive care physicians.” Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B (2011). PMID: 21265048 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine
[20]
Schreiber J, Nierhaus A, Vettorazzi E et al.. “Rescue bedside laparotomy in the intensive care unit in patients too unstable for transport to the operating room.” Critical care (London, England) (2014). PMID: 24935653 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Pathophysiology & Mechanism, Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors, Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management, Special Populations
[21]
Liotier J, Barbier M, Plantefeve G et al.. “A rare cause of abdominal compartment syndrome: acute trichlorethylene overdose.” Clinical toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) (2008). PMID: 19003597 ↗
L4CASE_SERIESCited in: Pathophysiology & Mechanism, Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management
[22]
Harrois A, Libert N, Duranteau J. “Acute kidney injury in trauma patients.” Current opinion in critical care (2017). PMID: 29035925 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Pathophysiology & Mechanism
[23]
Vegas A, Denault A, Royse C. “A bedside clinical and ultrasound-based approach to hemodynamic instability - Part II: bedside ultrasound in hemodynamic shock: continuing professional development.” Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie (2014). PMID: 25274122 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology & Mechanism, Clinical Presentation
[24]
Masyhudi ANF, Parenrengi MA, Suryaningtyas W. “Fatal complication caused by laxative suppository agent on pediatric patient with hydrocephalus on ventriculo-peritoneal shunt: a case report.” Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery (2023). PMID: 36763154 ↗
L4CASE_SERIESCited in: Pathophysiology & Mechanism
[25]
Vidal MG, Ruiz Weisser J, Gonzalez F et al.. “Incidence and clinical effects of intra-abdominal hypertension in critically ill patients.” Critical care medicine (2008). PMID: 18520642 ↗
L2PROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors, Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management, Special Populations
[26]
Cheatham ML, Safcsak K, Brzezinski SJ et al.. “Nitrogen balance, protein loss, and the open abdomen.” Critical care medicine (2007). PMID: 17095940 ↗
L2PROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors, Special Populations
[27]
Murphy PB, Parry NG, Sela N et al.. “Intra-Abdominal Hypertension Is More Common Than Previously Thought: A Prospective Study in a Mixed Medical-Surgical ICU.” Critical care medicine (2018). PMID: 29578878 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors
[28]
Paolini JB, Mancini J, Genestal M et al.. “Predictive value of abdominal obesity vs. body mass index for determining risk of intensive care unit mortality.” Critical care medicine (2010). PMID: 20228682 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors, Special Populations
[29]
Van Damme L, De Waele JJ. “Effect of decompressive laparotomy on organ function in patients with abdominal compartment syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Critical care (London, England) (2018). PMID: 30045753 ↗
L2SR_COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors
[30]
Holodinsky JK, Roberts DJ, Ball CG et al.. “Risk factors for intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome among adult intensive care unit patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Critical care (London, England) (2013). PMID: 24144138 ↗
L2SR_COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors, Prognostication, Goals of Care & End-of-Life (incl. Brain-Death Determination & Organ Donation)
[31]
Batacchi S, Matano S, Nella A et al.. “Vacuum-assisted closure device enhances recovery of critically ill patients following emergency surgical procedures.” Critical care (London, England) (2009). PMID: 19961614 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors, Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First), Severity Scoring & Risk Stratification (ICU Scores), History and Evolution of Treatment, Special Populations
[32]
Khot Z, Murphy PB, Sela N et al.. “Incidence of Intra-Abdominal Hypertension and Abdominal Compartment Syndrome: A Systematic Review.” Journal of intensive care medicine (2019). PMID: 31808368 ↗
L2SR_COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors
[33]
Pinto GCC, Gaiga LC, de Moura MP et al.. “Incidence and risk factors of abdominal compartment syndrome in pediatric oncology patients: a prospective cohort study.” European journal of pediatrics (2023). PMID: 37227502 ↗
L2PROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors
[34]
Strang SG, Habes QLM, Van der Hoven B et al.. “Intestinal fatty acid binding protein as a predictor for intra-abdominal pressure-related complications in patients admitted to the intensive care unit; a prospective cohort study (I-Fabulous study).” Journal of critical care (2020). PMID: 32980233 ↗
L2PROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors
[35]
Murtaza G, Pal KM, Jajja MR et al.. “Intra abdominal hypertension; incidence, prevalence and outcomes in a mixed intensive care unit: Prospective cohort study.” International journal of surgery (London, England) (2015). PMID: 25980395 ↗
L2PROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors
[36]
Thabet FC, Bougmiza IM, Chehab MS et al.. “Incidence, Risk Factors, and Prognosis of Intra-Abdominal Hypertension in Critically Ill Children: A Prospective Epidemiological Study.” Journal of intensive care medicine (2015). PMID: 25922384 ↗
L2PROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors, Prognostication, Goals of Care & End-of-Life (incl. Brain-Death Determination & Organ Donation)
[37]
Husu HL, Valkonen MM, Leppäniemi AK et al.. “Occurrence and Risk Factors of Infected Pancreatic Necrosis in Intensive Care Unit-Treated Patients with Necrotizing Severe Acute Pancreatitis.” Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (2021). PMID: 33987740 ↗
L3RETROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors
[38]
Robin-Lersundi A, Abella Alvarez A, San Miguel Mendez C et al.. “Multidisciplinary Approach to Treating Severe Acute Pancreatitis in a Low-Volume Hospital.” World journal of surgery (2019). PMID: 31440777 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors, Special Populations
[39]
Husu HL, Leppäniemi AK, Mentula PJ. “Who would benefit from open abdomen in severe acute pancreatitis?-a matched case-control study.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2021). PMID: 34112205 ↗
L3CASE_CONTROLCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors, Special Populations
[40]
Patel A, Lall CG, Jennings SG et al.. “Abdominal compartment syndrome.” AJR. American journal of roentgenology (2007). PMID: 17954637 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Clinical Presentation
[41]
Caruso M, Rinaldo C, Iacobellis F et al.. “Abdominal compartment syndrome: what radiologist needs to know.” La Radiologia medica (2023). PMID: 37747669 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Clinical Presentation, Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First)
[42]
Arcieri TR, Meizoso JP. “Intraabdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome: What you need to know.” The journal of trauma and acute care surgery (2025). PMID: 40189748 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Clinical Presentation, Prognostication, Goals of Care & End-of-Life (incl. Brain-Death Determination & Organ Donation)
[43]
Lombardi AF, Thompson CP, Zulfiqar M et al.. “Radiologic evaluation of abdominal compartment syndrome: an updated educational review.” Abdominal radiology (New York) (2025). PMID: 40824534 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Clinical Presentation
[44]
Lee AHH, Lee WS, Anderson D. “Severe pancreatitis complicated by abdominal compartment syndrome managed with decompressive laparotomy: a case report.” BMC surgery (2019). PMID: 31419970 ↗
L4CASE_SERIESCited in: Clinical Presentation
[45]
Deitch EA, Dayal SD. “Intensive care unit management of the trauma patient.” Critical care medicine (2006). PMID: 16878037 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First), Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management
[46]
Malbrain ML, De laet I, Van Regenmortel N et al.. “Can the abdominal perimeter be used as an accurate estimation of intra-abdominal pressure?” Critical care medicine (2009). PMID: 19050639 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First), History and Evolution of Treatment, Special Populations
[47]
Bucher F, Dastagir N, Tamulevicius M et al.. “Evaluation of non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia for burn patients - A matched-pair analysis and treatment algorithm.” Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries (2024). PMID: 39442475 ↗
L4RETROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First), Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management
[48]
Bouveresse S, Piton G, Badet N et al.. “Abdominal compartment syndrome and intra-abdominal hypertension in critically ill patients: diagnostic value of computed tomography.” European radiology (2019). PMID: 30737569 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First), Special Populations
[49]
Silveira LGT, Brocca IC, Moraes ES et al.. “Hemodynamic effects of increased intra-abdominal pressure in critically ill children.” Jornal de pediatria (2020). PMID: 33358965 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First)
[50]
Zhang HY, Liu D, Tang H et al.. “Prevalence and diagnosis rate of intra-abdominal hypertension in critically ill adult patients: A single-center cross-sectional study.” Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi (2015). PMID: 26917027 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First), Severity Scoring & Risk Stratification (ICU Scores)
[51]
Shu W, Wan J, Chen J et al.. “Initially elevated arterial lactate as an independent predictor of poor outcomes in severe acute pancreatitis.” BMC gastroenterology (2020). PMID: 32306903 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First)
[52]
Guetta O, Brotfain E, Shaked G et al.. “Intra-abdominal pressure may be elevated in patients with open abdomen after emergent laparotomy.” Langenbeck's archives of surgery (2020). PMID: 31955259 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First)
[53]
Jena A, Banker H, Tawk R et al.. “Outcomes of Abdominal Exploration in ECMO-Supported Patients: A Multicenter ICU Cohort Study.” Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia (2026). PMID: 41692630 ↗
L3RETROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First), Severity Scoring & Risk Stratification (ICU Scores), Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets, De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[54]
Untereiner O, Charpentier C, Grignon B et al.. “Adrenal trauma: medical and surgical emergency.” Emergency medicine journal : EMJ (2012). PMID: 22609698 ↗
L4CASE_SERIESCited in: Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First)
[55]
Sheldon R, Eckert M. “Surgical Critical Care: Gastrointestinal Complications.” The Surgical clinics of North America (2017). PMID: 29132517 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First), Complications & Iatrogenesis
[56]
Allen R, Sarani B. “Evaluation and management of intraabdominal hypertension.” Current opinion in critical care (2020). PMID: 32004192 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First)
[57]
Maluso P, Olson J, Sarani B. “Abdominal Compartment Hypertension and Abdominal Compartment Syndrome.” Critical care clinics (2016). PMID: 27016163 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First), Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management
[58]
Rajasurya V, Surani S. “Abdominal compartment syndrome: Often overlooked conditions in medical intensive care units.” World journal of gastroenterology (2020). PMID: 31988588 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First)
[59]
Svorcan P, Stojanovic M, Stevanovic P et al.. “The influence of intraabdominal pressure on the mortality rate of patients with acute pancreatitis.” Turkish journal of medical sciences (2017). PMID: 28618765 ↗
L4PROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Severity Scoring & Risk Stratification (ICU Scores), Prognostication, Goals of Care & End-of-Life (incl. Brain-Death Determination & Organ Donation)
[60]
Strang SG, Van Waes OJ, Van der Hoven B et al.. “Intestinal fatty acid binding protein as a marker for intra-abdominal pressure-related complications in patients admitted to the intensive care unit; study protocol for a prospective cohort study (I-Fabulous study).” Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine (2015). PMID: 25591785 ↗
L5STUDY_PROTOCOLCited in: Severity Scoring & Risk Stratification (ICU Scores)
[61]
Girard E, Abba J, Boussat B et al.. “Damage Control Surgery for Non-traumatic Abdominal Emergencies.” World journal of surgery (2018). PMID: 28948335 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Severity Scoring & Risk Stratification (ICU Scores)
[62]
Kirkpatrick AW, Roberts DJ, De Waele J et al.. “Intra-abdominal hypertension and the abdominal compartment syndrome: updated consensus definitions and clinical practice guidelines from the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome.” Intensive care medicine (2013). PMID: 23673399 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management, History and Evolution of Treatment
[63]
Abdelmotaal AM, Abdelsalam AM, Bakry SAD et al.. “Effect of Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) versus 5% albumin solution on intra-abdominal pressure in severe burn patients: A prospective randomized clinical trial.” Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries (2023). PMID: 37833147 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management, Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult, History and Evolution of Treatment
[64]
Zhao G, Zhang JG, Wu HS et al.. “Effects of different resuscitation fluid on severe acute pancreatitis.” World journal of gastroenterology (2013). PMID: 23599623 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management, Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult
[65]
Mao EQ, Tang YQ, Fei J et al.. “Fluid therapy for severe acute pancreatitis in acute response stage.” Chinese medical journal (2009). PMID: 19187641 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management, Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult
[66]
Neal MD, Hoffman MK, Cuschieri J et al.. “Crystalloid to packed red blood cell transfusion ratio in the massively transfused patient: when a little goes a long way.” The journal of trauma and acute care surgery (2012). PMID: 22491601 ↗
L2PROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management
[67]
De Waele JJ, De Laet I, Kirkpatrick AW et al.. “Intra-abdominal Hypertension and Abdominal Compartment Syndrome.” American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation (2011). PMID: 21184922 ↗
L4CASE_SERIESCited in: Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management
[68]
Morrell BJ, Vinden C, Singh RN et al.. “Secondary abdominal compartment syndrome in a case of pediatric trauma shock resuscitation.” Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies (2007). PMID: 17251886 ↗
L4CASE_SERIESCited in: Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management
[69]
Rabbi JF, Valaulikar G, Appling NA et al.. “Secondary abdominal compartment syndrome causing failure to wean from cardiopulmonary bypass.” The Annals of thoracic surgery (2012). PMID: 22450114 ↗
L4CASE_SERIESCited in: Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management, Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult
[70]
Park JH, Kwon JY, Lee SE et al.. “Sudden hemodynamic collapse after prone positioning on a Jackson spinal table for spinal surgery.” Korean journal of anesthesiology (2018). PMID: 30590915 ↗
L4CASE_SERIESCited in: Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management
[71]
Gonzalez EA, Moore FA. “Resuscitation beyond the abdominal compartment syndrome.” Current opinion in critical care (2010). PMID: 23361130 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management
[72]
Ameloot K, Gillebert C, Desie N et al.. “Hypoperfusion, shock states, and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS).” The Surgical clinics of North America (2012). PMID: 22414408 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management
[73]
Kashintsev AA, Kunda R, Proutski V. “Early selective enteral feeding in combination with active decompression of duodenum in treatment of moderate and severe acute pancreatitis - A proof-of-concept clinical study.” Pancreatology : official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) ... [et al.] (2024). PMID: 39317599 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult, History and Evolution of Treatment
[74]
Kirkpatrick AW, Coccolini F, Tolonen M et al.. “The unrestricted global effort to complete the COOL trial.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2023). PMID: 37170123 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult, History and Evolution of Treatment
[75]
Zhang MJ, Zhang GL, Yuan WB et al.. “Treatment of abdominal compartment syndrome in severe acute pancreatitis patients with traditional Chinese medicine.” World journal of gastroenterology (2008). PMID: 18567089 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult
[76]
Saraswat A, Bach J, Watson WD et al.. “A pilot study examining experiential learning vs didactic education of abdominal compartment syndrome.” American journal of surgery (2016). PMID: 27771036 ↗
L4RCTCited in: Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult
[77]
Sun ZX, Huang HR, Zhou H. “Indwelling catheter and conservative measures in the treatment of abdominal compartment syndrome in fulminant acute pancreatitis.” World journal of gastroenterology (2006). PMID: 16937509 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult
[78]
Poola AS, Aguayo P, Fraser JD et al.. “Primary Closure versus Bedside Silo and Delayed Closure for Gastroschisis: A Truncated Prospective Randomized Trial.” European journal of pediatric surgery : official journal of Austrian Association of Pediatric Surgery ... [et al] = Zeitschrift fur Kinderchirurgie (2018). PMID: 29458229 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult, History and Evolution of Treatment
[79]
Plaudis H, Rudzats A, Melberga L et al.. “Abdominal negative-pressure therapy: a new method in countering abdominal compartment and peritonitis - prospective study and critical review of literature.” Annals of intensive care (2012). PMID: 23281649 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult
[80]
Padalino P, Dionigi G, Minoja G et al.. “Fascia-to-fascia closure with abdominal topical negative pressure for severe abdominal infections: preliminary results in a department of general surgery and intensive care unit.” Surgical infections (2010). PMID: 20969470 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult
[81]
Li TL, Li M, Yang XM et al.. “Abdominal compartment syndrome following chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal mucositis: a case report.” Frontiers in medicine (2026). PMID: 41626229 ↗
L4CASE_SERIESCited in: Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult, De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[82]
Piccoli M, Agresta F, Attinà GM et al.. “"Complex abdominal wall" management: evidence-based guidelines of the Italian Consensus Conference.” Updates in surgery (2018). PMID: 30255435 ↗
L4CASE_SERIESCited in: Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult
[83]
Fernandez CA. “Damage Control Surgery and Transfer in Emergency General Surgery.” The Surgical clinics of North America (2023). PMID: 37838467 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult
[84]
Kobayashi L, Coimbra R. “Planned re-laparotomy and the need for optimization of physiology and immunology.” European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society (2014). PMID: 26815893 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult
[85]
Radenkovic DV, Bajec D, Ivancevic N et al.. “Decompressive laparotomy with temporary abdominal closure versus percutaneous puncture with placement of abdominal catheter in patients with abdominal compartment syndrome during acute pancreatitis: background and design of multicenter, randomised, controlled study.” BMC surgery (2010). PMID: 20624281 ↗
L5STUDY_PROTOCOLCited in: Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult
[86]
Reintam Blaser A, Starkopf J, Alhazzani W et al.. “Early enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: ESICM clinical practice guidelines.” Intensive care medicine (2017). PMID: 28168570 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: History and Evolution of Treatment, Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets
[87]
Strong B, Spoors C, Richardson N et al.. “Abdominal compartment syndrome in burns patients: Introduction of an evidence-based management guideline and algorithm.” The journal of trauma and acute care surgery (2021). PMID: 34016932 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[88]
Cárdenas-Jaén K, Guilabert L, Martínez-Moneo E et al.. “AEG-AESPANC-OPGE-SIED-SPG Ibero-Latin American Guidelines on Acute Pancreatitis (iLATAM-AP).” United European gastroenterology journal (2026). PMID: 42216617 ↗
L1SR_MA_RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment, De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[89]
Bailey J, Shapiro MJ. “Abdominal compartment syndrome.” Critical care (London, England) (2000). PMID: 11094493 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[90]
Podda M, Pellino G, Di Saverio S et al.. “Infected pancreatic necrosis: outcomes and clinical predictors of mortality. A post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study.” Updates in surgery (2023). PMID: 36899292 ↗
L2NON_RANDOMIZED_TRIALCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment, Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets
[91]
Carmeliet T, Zachée P, Dits H et al.. “Acute primary abdominal compartment syndrome due to Clostridium difficile induced toxic megacolon: a case report and review of the literature.” Anaesthesiology intensive therapy (2019). PMID: 31741357 ↗
L4SR_COHORTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[92]
Petrenko AP, Castelo-Branco C, Marshalov DV et al.. “Assessing the Usefulness of Severity Markers in Women with Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome.” Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) (2020). PMID: 33063288 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[93]
Schierz IAM, Giuffrè M, Del Vecchio A et al.. “Recognizable neonatal clinical features of aplasia cutis congenita.” Italian journal of pediatrics (2020). PMID: 32070410 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[94]
Briggs CS, Sibille JA, Yammine H et al.. “Short-term and midterm survival of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms in the contemporary endovascular era.” Journal of vascular surgery (2018). PMID: 29526377 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[95]
Melo EB, Carneiro-D'Albuquerque LA, Andraus W et al.. “Incidence of intra-abdominal hypertension after liver transplantation with temporary portocaval shunt - A prospective cohort.” Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (2026). PMID: 41818885 ↗
L2PROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment, Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets, De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[96]
Timmons D, Montrief T, Koyfman A et al.. “Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: A review for emergency clinicians.” The American journal of emergency medicine (2019). PMID: 31097257 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[97]
Jiménez-Yuste V, Peyvandi F, Klamroth R et al.. “Safety and efficacy of long-term emicizumab prophylaxis in hemophilia A with factor VIII inhibitors: A phase 3b, multicenter, single-arm study (STASEY).” Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis (2022). PMID: 36397934 ↗
L2NON_RANDOMIZED_TRIALCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment, Prevention, Screening and Post-ICU Surveillance
[98]
Lynch E, Razavi S, Atallah W et al.. “Leveraging Natural Language Processing to Evaluate the Evolution of Subcapsular Renal Hematomas: Report of a 10-Year Retrospective Multi-Institution Study.” Journal of endourology (2026). PMID: 42290463 ↗
L4CROSS_SECTIONALCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment, De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[99]
Ghneim MH, Deshwar AB, Zhang AL et al.. “Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and damage-control laparotomy in acute care surgery patients: A safe and successful option for patient rescue.” The journal of trauma and acute care surgery (2026). PMID: 41705911 ↗
L4PROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets, De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[100]
Smit M, Koopman B, Dieperink W et al.. “Intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome in patients admitted to the ICU.” Annals of intensive care (2020). PMID: 33001288 ↗
L2PROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets
[101]
Reid TD, Kratzke I, Dayal D et al.. “The role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in pediatric abdominal transplant patients: A qualitative systematic review of literature.” Pediatric transplantation (2020). PMID: 33314532 ↗
L4SR_COHORTCited in: Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets
[102]
Fagertun H, Langlo KAR, Klepstad P et al.. “Incidence and outcome of acute kidney injury in open abdomen treatment following open surgery for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.” Scandinavian journal of surgery : SJS : official organ for the Finnish Surgical Society and the Scandinavian Surgical Society (2026). PMID: 42266002 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets, De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[103]
Lubnow M, Koch CT, Malfertheiner MV et al.. “Prevalence, Predictors and Decompressive Laparotomy in Abdominal Compartment Syndrome in Patients Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.” Journal of clinical medicine (2025). PMID: 39941529 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets
[104]
Nitschke C, Schulte M, Izbicki JR et al.. “Characteristics and Outcome Analysis for Intensive Care Patients Undergoing Decompressive Laparotomy for Abdominal Compartment Syndrome: Impact of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support.” Journal of clinical medicine (2023). PMID: 38068455 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets
[105]
Räsänen L, Lilja HE. “Outcome and management in neonates with gastroschisis in the third millennium-a single-centre observational study.” European journal of pediatrics (2022). PMID: 35226141 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets
[106]
Montorfano L, Dip F, Lo Menzo E et al.. “The role of Cushing's reflex and the vasopressin-mediated oligoanuric response to intracranial hypertension in patients with abdominal compartment syndrome.” Surgery (2021). PMID: 34706825 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets
[107]
Montorfano L, Giambartolomei G, Funes DR et al.. “The Cushing reflex and the vasopressin-mediated hemodynamic response to increased intracranial pressure during acute elevations in intraabdominal pressure.” Surgery (2019). PMID: 31813477 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets
[108]
Tsuda M, Tanita MT, Talizin TB et al.. “Analysis of Incidence, Risk Factors and Outcomes Associated With Abdominal Hypertension in Major Burn Patients.” Annals of burns and fire disasters (2023). PMID: 38680907 ↗
L4PROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets
[109]
Neto WR, Libório AB. “Acute kidney injury is a major mediator of intra-abdominal pressure-related mortality in critically ill patients: a longitudinal analysis.” Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care (2026). PMID: 41618466 ↗
L3RETROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets, De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[110]
Yuan H, Liang W, You S et al.. “Analysis of the Application of Laparoscopic Peritoneal Lavage and Drainage in the Early Treatment of Severe Acute Pancreatitis.” Pancreas (2025). PMID: 39933051 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets
[111]
Junge N, Artmann A, Richter N et al.. “Intra-Abdominal Hypertension and Compartment Syndrome after Pediatric Liver Transplantation: Incidence, Risk Factors and Outcome.” Children (Basel, Switzerland) (2022). PMID: 36553436 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets
[112]
Taniguchi H, Ikeda T, Takeuchi I et al.. “Iliopsoas Hematoma in Patients Undergoing Venovenous ECMO.” American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (2021). PMID: 33385201 ↗
L3RETROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets
[113]
Tan BK, Liew ZH, Kaushik M et al.. “Early Initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy Among Burned Patients With Acute Kidney Injury.” Annals of plastic surgery (2020). PMID: 31977529 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets
[114]
Li M, Fu Y, Chen Y et al.. “Case Report: Early documented infected pancreatic necrosis due to carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii and concurrent Enterococcus faecium bacteremia: a salvage regimen with sulbactam-durlobactam and tigecycline.” Frontiers in medicine (2026). PMID: 42440864 ↗
L4CASE_SERIESCited in: Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets, De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[115]
Ma P, Wei X, Hou J et al.. “Incidence and factors independently associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome in chinese patients with severe acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” BMC pulmonary medicine (2026). PMID: 41820923 ↗
L2SR_COHORTCited in: De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[116]
de Oliveira E Silva PD, de Melo RM, Folgosi JFB et al.. “Airway pressure reliably predicts intra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopic surgery.” Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery (2026). PMID: 42360540 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[117]
Crespo-Ortega L, Villaseñor-Echavarri R, Liberman-Borovoy V et al.. “Prognostic Significance of Acute Kidney Injury Subtype among Patients with Decompensated Cirrhosis: A 10-Year Retrospective Analysis.” Archives of medical research (2026). PMID: 42176464 ↗
L3RETROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[118]
Barbosa E, Barone G, Bertoglio CL et al.. “Laparoscopic application of intraoperative fascial traction (fasciotensⓇHernia) during loss of domain scrotal hernia repair: A European multicenter case series with technical details and preliminary results.” Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery (2026). PMID: 41843194 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[119]
Zangbar B, Mehta R, Kirsch J et al.. “Diverting loop ileostomy with antegrade colonic lavage compared with colectomy in Clostridioides difficile colitis: A decade-long propensity score-matched analysis.” The journal of trauma and acute care surgery (2026). PMID: 41705902 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[120]
Yamamoto R, Shimizu M, Shinozaki H et al.. “Severe abdominal adverse events following open abdomen: a multicenter retrospective observational study.” International journal of surgery (London, England) (2026). PMID: 41677356 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[121]
Talvitie M, Hultgren R, Lundberg G et al.. “Sex Specific Analysis of Outcomes after Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Population Based Swedvasc Study.” European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (2025). PMID: 41319846 ↗
L4RETROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[122]
Zhang X, Shen Y, Wang B et al.. “Synergistic impact of nutritional risk, glycemic control, and systemic inflammation on Abdominal Compartment Syndrome in diabetic patients following complex ventral hernia repair: a development and validation study.” Frontiers in nutrition (2026). PMID: 42404152 ↗
L2PROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[123]
Wiktor AJ, Vogler TO, Carmichael H et al.. “Safety and Efficacy of an Early Low-Dose Fresh Frozen Plasma Infusion in Burn Resuscitation.” Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association (2026). PMID: 41466517 ↗
L4RETROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[124]
Kaya E, Parmaksiz A, Sevim Yildiz A et al.. “Multidisciplinary Rescue for a Lethal Triad: Severe Hypertriglyceridemia, Necrotizing Pancreatitis, and Abdominal Compartment Syndrome in Pregnancy.” Journal of lipid and atherosclerosis (2025). PMID: 42211153 ↗
L4CASE_SERIESCited in: De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[125]
Fernandez L, Kanawati AJ, Abdelgawad M et al.. “Time Is Kidney: A Case Study and Literature Review of Bilateral Renal Compartment Syndrome After Blunt Trauma, a Rare Complication.” Journal of clinical medicine (2026). PMID: 41899389 ↗
L4CASE_SERIESCited in: De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)
[126]
Cheatham ML, De Waele JJ, De Laet I et al.. “The impact of body position on intra-abdominal pressure measurement: a multicenter analysis.” Critical care medicine (2009). PMID: 19487946 ↗
L2PROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Complications & Iatrogenesis
[127]
Pereira BM. “Abdominal compartment syndrome and intra-abdominal hypertension.” Current opinion in critical care (2019). PMID: 31524716 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Complications & Iatrogenesis
[128]
Maung AA, Schuster KM, Kaplan LJ et al.. “Compared to conventional ventilation, airway pressure release ventilation may increase ventilator days in trauma patients.” The journal of trauma and acute care surgery (2012). PMID: 23019679 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Complications & Iatrogenesis
[129]
Boehm D, Schröder C, Arras D et al.. “Fluid Management as a Risk Factor for Intra-abdominal Compartment Syndrome in Burn Patients: A Total Body Surface Area-Independent Multicenter Trial Part I.” Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association (2019). PMID: 30918949 ↗
L2NON_RANDOMIZED_TRIALCited in: Complications & Iatrogenesis
[130]
Dariel A, Poocharoen W, de Silva N et al.. “Secondary plastic closure of gastroschisis is associated with a lower incidence of mechanical ventilation.” European journal of pediatric surgery : official journal of Austrian Association of Pediatric Surgery ... [et al] = Zeitschrift fur Kinderchirurgie (2014). PMID: 25526605 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Complications & Iatrogenesis
[131]
Richter T, Huebler M. “Acute abdominal compartment syndrome as a complication of Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: a case report.” BMC anesthesiology (2014). PMID: 24910537 ↗
L4CASE_SERIESCited in: Complications & Iatrogenesis
[132]
Lerner SM. “Review article: the abdominal compartment syndrome.” Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics (2008). PMID: 18513379 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Complications & Iatrogenesis
[133]
Hedenstierna G, Larsson A. “Influence of abdominal pressure on respiratory and abdominal organ function.” Current opinion in critical care (2012). PMID: 22157251 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Complications & Iatrogenesis
[134]
Beckman M, Paul J, Neideen T et al.. “Role of the Open Abdomen in Critically Ill Patients.” Critical care clinics (2016). PMID: 27016166 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Complications & Iatrogenesis
[135]
Tran Z, Assali MA, Shin B et al.. “Trends and clinical outcomes of abdominal compartment syndrome among intensive care hospitalizations.” Surgery (2024). PMID: 38806334 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Complications & Iatrogenesis
[136]
Sagraves SG, Toschlog EA, Rotondo MF. “Damage control surgery--the intensivist's role.” Journal of intensive care medicine (2006). PMID: 16698739 ↗
L5NARRATIVE_REVIEWCited in: Complications & Iatrogenesis
[137]
González L, Rodríguez R, Mencía S et al.. “[Utility of monitoring intra-abdominal pressure in critically ill children].” Anales de pediatria (Barcelona, Spain : 2003) (2012). PMID: 22455949 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Prognostication, Goals of Care & End-of-Life (incl. Brain-Death Determination & Organ Donation)
[138]
Malbrain ML, Roberts DJ, De Laet I et al.. “The role of abdominal compliance, the neglected parameter in critically ill patients - a consensus review of 16. Part 1: definitions and pathophysiology.” Anaesthesiology intensive therapy (2014). PMID: 25432558 ↗
L4CASE_SERIESCited in: Prognostication, Goals of Care & End-of-Life (incl. Brain-Death Determination & Organ Donation)
[139]
Daugherty EL, Hongyan Liang, Taichman D et al.. “Abdominal compartment syndrome is common in medical intensive care unit patients receiving large-volume resuscitation.” Journal of intensive care medicine (2007). PMID: 17895487 ↗
L2PROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Special Populations
[140]
Seternes A, Fasting S, Klepstad P et al.. “Bedside dressing changes for open abdomen in the intensive care unit is safe and time and staff efficient.” Critical care (London, England) (2016). PMID: 27233244 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Special Populations
[141]
Al-Bahrani AZ, Darwish A, Hamza N et al.. “Gut barrier dysfunction in critically ill surgical patients with abdominal compartment syndrome.” Pancreas (2010). PMID: 20861696 ↗
L4PROSPECTIVE_COHORTCited in: Special Populations
[142]
García AF, Sánchez ÁI, Gutiérrez ÁJ et al.. “Effect of abdominal negative-pressure wound therapy on the measurement of intra-abdominal pressure.” The Journal of surgical research (2018). PMID: 29804842 ↗
L3CROSS_SECTIONALCited in: Special Populations
[143]
Muturi A, Ndaguatha P, Ojuka D et al.. “Prevalence and predictors of intra-abdominal hypertension and compartment syndrome in surgical patients in critical care units at Kenyatta National Hospital.” BMC emergency medicine (2017). PMID: 28330440 ↗
L3CROSS_SECTIONALCited in: Special Populations
[144]
Sun J, Sun H, Sun Z et al.. “Intra-abdominal hypertension and increased acute kidney injury risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” The Journal of international medical research (2021). PMID: 34053324 ↗
L2SR_COHORTCited in: Special Populations
[145]
Huang YH, Chou CM, Huang SY et al.. “Pediatric Emergent Peritoneal Dialysis in Intensive Care Units: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes.” Blood purification (2024). PMID: 38797161 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Special Populations
[146]
Namias N. “Advances in burn care.” Current opinion in critical care (2007). PMID: 17599010 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Prevention, Screening and Post-ICU Surveillance
[147]
Yokoe M, Takada T, Mayumi T et al.. “Japanese guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis: Japanese Guidelines 2015.” Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences (2015). PMID: 25973947 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Prevention, Screening and Post-ICU Surveillance
[148]
Yenikomshian H, Reiss M, Nabavian R et al.. “Gastric feedings effectively prophylax against upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in burn patients.” Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association (2011). PMID: 21245765 ↗
L4CASE_CONTROLCited in: Prevention, Screening and Post-ICU Surveillance
[149]
Harvin JA, Podbielski J, Vincent LE et al.. “Damage control laparotomy trial: design, rationale and implementation of a randomized controlled trial.” Trauma surgery & acute care open (2017). PMID: 29766087 ↗
L5STUDY_PROTOCOLCited in: Prevention, Screening and Post-ICU Surveillance

Abdominal Compartment Syndrome

Quick Reference

Overview and Recommendations

Background

Evaluation

Management

Board Review — High Yield

Deep Dive — Evidence Details

Definition, Classification & Shock-Physiology Spine

Synonyms

Classification

Shock‑Physiology Spine

Pathophysiology & Mechanism

Sequential Mechanistic Cascade

Clinical Correlates of the Mechanism

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Epidemiology, Etiology & Risk Factors

Incidence and Prevalence

Mortality Impact

Major Risk Factors (OR/RR)

Temporal Trends

Clinical Presentation

Presenting Symptoms

Neurological Examination Findings

Phenotypic Variants

Red Flags (Urgent Action Required)

Atypical Presentations

Diagnosis & Workup (Hemodynamic & Bedside-First)

History and Physical

Gold‑Standard Test

Laboratory Studies

Imaging

Diagnostic Algorithm

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Severity Scoring & Risk Stratification (ICU Scores)

Gastrointestinal Failure (GIF) Score

Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA)

Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II)

Damage‑Control Surgery (DCS) Criteria‑Based Mortality

Practical Application

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Acute Resuscitation & Time-Critical Management

Definitive Therapy & Source Control of the Inciting Insult

Step 1: Identify the dominant source

Step 2: First‑line source‑control interventions

Step 3: Escalation if first‑line fails

Step 4: Monitoring & titration

Step 5: Resolution & transition

History and Evolution of Treatment

Early Surgical Rescue

Medical Optimization (2010‑2017)

Minimally‑Invasive Drainage (2013‑2020)

Temporary Abdominal Closure (TAC) Innovations (2009‑2023)

Open‑Abdomen Strategies (2013‑present)

Current Integrated Algorithm

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Organ Support: Ventilatory, Hemodynamic, Renal & Extracorporeal Targets

Ventilatory Targets

Hemodynamic Targets

Renal‑Replacement Targets

Extracorporeal Support (ECMO & Mechanical Circulatory Support)

Integrated Protocol (Step‑by‑Step)

Outcomes Summary

De-escalation, Ventilator Liberation, Sedation-Delirium Control & Early Rehabilitation (ABCDEF Bundle & PICS)

The ABCDEF Liberation Bundle

Evidence Supporting Early Liberation in ACS‑related Critical Illness

Practical Workflow

Anticipating Complications

Complications & Iatrogenesis

Respiratory Monitoring

Autonomic Complications

DVT/PE Prophylaxis

Pain Management

Rehabilitation

Hospital‑Acquired Complications

Complication Burden

Prognostication, Goals of Care & End-of-Life (incl. Brain-Death Determination & Organ Donation)

Prognostic Factors

Validated Prognostic Scores

Long‑Term Sequelae

Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II)

Step 1: Identify the dominant source

Step 2: First‑line source‑control interventions

Step 3: Escalation if first‑line fails

Step 4: Monitoring & titration

Step 5: Resolution & transition