Continuous intra-gastral monitoring of intra-abdominal pressure in critically ill children: a validation study

Kaussen, T.; Gutting, M.; Lasch, F.; Boethig, D.; von Gise, A.; Dingemann, J.; Koeditz, H.; Jack, T.; Sasse, M.; Beerbaum, P.; Boehne, M.

doi:10.1186/s40635-021-00386-8

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Table 3 Results of the in vitro examination of measurement agreement of IVP and ACM-IGP technique compared to a water column in a container model

From: Continuous intra-gastral monitoring of intra-abdominal pressure in critically ill children: a validation study

		Paired measurements	IAP mean (mmHg)	Spearman correlation coefficient (r²)	WSACS method validation criteria				MAPE (SD) (%)
Experimental arrangement		Paired measurements	IAP mean (mmHg)	Spearman correlation coefficient (r²)	Bias (mmHg)	Precision (mmHg)	LOA (mmHg)	PE (%)	MAPE (SD) (%)
Experimental arrangement	Target values according to [1]^a	–		≥ 0.6^b	≤ │1│	≤ 2	− *4 to + 4*	≤ 25	^c
Setting 1: gastric tube (5 Ch.)	ACM-IGP vs. water column	86	8.4	0.99	0.1	0.2	− 0.3 to 0.5	5	6 (13)
	Gastric tube (5 Ch.) vs. water column	86	8.0	0.99	0.8	0.3	0.2 to 1.4	8	17 (21)
	ACM-IGP vs. gastric tube (5 Ch.)	86	8.0	0.99	0.7	0.4	− 0.1 to 1.5	10	13 (14)
Setting 2: gastric tube (8 Ch.)	ACM-IGP vs. water column	86	8.3	0.99	0.3	0.2	− 0.1 to 0.7	5	8 (16)
	Gastric tube (8 Ch.) vs. water column	86	8.4	0.99	0.1	0.4	− 0.7 to 0.9	10	9 (18)
	ACM-IGP vs. gastric tube (8 Ch.)	86	8.2	0.99	− 0.2	0.4	− 1.0 to 0.6	10	9 (20)
Setting 3: transurethral catheter (6 Ch.)	ACM-IGP vs. water column	86	8.5	0.99	− 0.1	0.5	− 1.1 to 1.1	12	9 (13)
	Transurethral catheter (6 Ch.) vs. water column	86	8.0	0.99	0.9	0.5	− 0.1 to 1.9	13	16 (0)
	ACM-IGP vs. transurethral catheter (6 Ch.)	86	8.0	0.99	0.9	0.5	− 0.1 to 1.9	13	15 (12)
Setting 4: transurethral catheter (8 Ch.)	ACM-IGP vs. water column	86	8.7	0.99	− 0.6	0.2	− 1.0 to − 0.2	5	14 (22)
	Transurethral catheter (8 Ch.) vs. water column	86	7.9	0.99	1.1	0.6	− 0.1 to 2.3	15	19 (20)
	ACM-IGP vs. transurethral catheter (8 Ch.)	86	8.2	0.99	1.7	0.6	0.5 to 2.9	15	27 (16)
Overall	ACM-IGP vs. water column	344	8.5	0.99	− 0.1	0.5	− 1.1 to 0.9	12	9 (17)
	IVP (transurethral catheter + gastric tube) vs. water column	344	8.1	0.98	0.7	0.6	− 0.5 to 1.9	15	15 (20)
	ACM-IGP vs. IVP (transurethral catheter + gastric tube)	344	8.1	0.97	0.8	0.8	− 0.8 to 2.4	20	16 (17)

ACM-IGP air-capsule-based measurement of intra-gastric pressure, Ch. Charriére, IAP intra-abdominal pressure, IVP intra-vesical pressure, LOA limits of agreement, MAPE mean absolute percentage error, No number, PE percentage error, SD standard deviation, WSACS Abdominal Compartment Society (formerly: World Society of Abdominal Compartment Syndrome)
^aTarget value specifications according to WSACS method validation criteria (bias + precision + LOA + PE) for the interchangeability of two IAP measurement methods [1]
^bSpearman’s correlation coefficient (r²; target: r² ≥ 0.6)
^cMean absolute percentage error (%; MAPE [19]) were calculated in addition to recommended WSACS criteria [1]

Back to article page