Skip to main content

Table 3 Intra-abdominal pressure from randomization to 7 days

From: Randomized controlled trial: neostigmine for intra-abdominal hypertension in acute pancreatitis

Time (h)

Intention-to-treat analysis

Subgroup analysis (IAP > 15 mmHg at baseline)

Per-protocol analysis

Neostigmine (n = 40)

Conventional (n = 40)

P value†

Neostigmine (n = 25)

Conventional (n = 23)

P value†

Neostigmine (n = 40)

Conventional (n = 36)

P value†

IAP

IAP

IAP

IAP

IAP

IAP

0

16.3 ± 2.7

15.9 ± 2.4

 

17.9 ± 2.0

17.6 ± 1.7

 

16.3 ± 2.7

15.9 ± 2.5

 

3

14.6 ± 3.0

15.0 ± 3.1

0.205

15.0 ± 3.0

16.7 ± 2.6

0.010

14.6 ± 3.0

14.9 ± 2.9

0.322

9

13.8 ± 3.5

15.0 ± 3.1

0.038

14.2 ± 3.3

16.0 ± 3.4

0.018

13.8 ± 3.5

14.7 ± 2.8

0.079

15

13.3 ± 3.4

14.7 ± 3.1

0.015

13.2 ± 3.7

15.8 ± 3.0

0.001

13.3 ± 3.4

14.7 ± 3.1

0.015

24

13.7 ± 3.6

14.7 ± 3.2

0.083

13.7 ± 3.6

15.2 ± 3.2

0.020

13.7 ± 3.6

14.5 ± 3.1

0.152

30

13.7 ± 3.5

14.3 ± 3.1

0.323

13.4 ± 3.2

15.0 ± 2.9

0.038

13.7 ± 3.5

14.0 ± 3.1

0.533

36

14.3 ± 3.6

13.8 ± 3.0

0.619

14.2 ± 3.5

14.1 ± 3.1

0.849

14.3 ± 3.6

13.7 ± 3.0

0.521

42

13.8 ± 3.1

14.2 ± 2.6

0.454

13.7 ± 3.4

14.5 ± 2.4

0.183

13.8 ± 3.1

14.2 ± 2.5

0.465

48

14.1 ± 3.2

13.7 ± 2.9

0.767

14.8 ± 3.0

14.4 ± 2.2

0.895

14.1 ± 3.2

13.4 ± 2.9

0.489

54

13.6 ± 3.4

13.4 ± 2.8

0.961

14.1 ± 3.4

14.0 ± 2.1

0.845

13.6 ± 3.4

13.2 ± 2.6

0.790

60

13.0 ± 3.1

13.6 ± 2.6

0.280

13.0 ± 3.2

14.1 ± 2.1

0.097

13.0 ± 3.1

13.3 ± 2.4

0.522

66

13.6 ± 3.1

13.3 ± 3.9

0.853

14.0 ± 2.8

13.7 ± 3.4

0.904

13.6 ± 3.1

12.9 ± 3.7

0.468

72

13.2 ± 2.9

13.8 ± 2.9

0.237

13.8 ± 3.1

14.2 ± 2.4

0.490

13.2 ± 2.9

13.4 ± 2.6

0.589

120

13.2 ± 3.2

13.8 ± 2.9

0.213

13.6 ± 3.2

14.4 ± 2.8

0.261

13.2 ± 3.2

13.2 ± 2.2

0.731

168

12.2 ± 2.7

13.6 ± 3.5

0.045

11.9 ± 2.8

14.2 ± 3.6

0.013

12.2 ± 2.7

13.0 ± 2.7

0.199

  1. IAP, intra-abdominal pressure
  2. †IAP at each time point were analyzed as post values in the intervention group versus post values in the control group by ANCOVA