Fentanyl as pre-emptive treatment of pain associated with turning mechanically ventilated patients: a randomized controlled feasibility study

ICU patients receiving remifentanil do not experience reduced duration of mechanical ventilation: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and network meta-analyses based on Bayesian theories

Background

The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to evaluate the efficacy of intravenous opioid μ-receptor analgesics in shortening the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) in ICU patients.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of remifentanil, sufentanil, morphine, and fentanyl on the duration of MV in ICU patients were searched in Embase, Cochrane, Pubmed, and Web of Science electronic databases. The primary outcome was MV duration. The Bayesian random-effects framework was used to evaluate relative efficacy.

Results

In total 20 studies were included in this NMA involving 3,442 patients. Remifentanil was not associated with a reduction in the duration of MV compared with fentanyl (mean difference (MD) -0.16; 95% credible interval (CrI): -4.75 ~ 5.63) and morphine (MD 3.84; 95% CrI: -0.29 ~ 10.68). The secondary outcomes showed that, compared with remifentanil, sufentanil can prolong the duration of extubation. No regimen significantly shortened the ICU length of stay and improved the ICU mortality, efficacy, safety, and drug-related adverse events.

Conclusion

Among these analgesics, remifentanil did not appear to be associated with a reduction in MV duration. Clinicians should carefully titrate the analgesia of MV patients to prevent a potentially prolonged duration of MV due to excessive or inadequate analgesic therapy.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, CRD42021232604.

Changes in Physiological Indices Before and After Nursing Care of Postoperative Patients With Esophageal Cancer in the ICU

Introduction

Various stressors have been identified in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), including postoperative pain, ventilatory management, and nursing care. However, sedated patients are less responsive, and nurses have difficulty capturing their stressors.

Objective

To investigate patient stress caused by nursing care performed in the ICU on sedated patients based on changes in physiological indices.

Methods

We observed nursing care performed on patients with postoperative esophageal cancer under sedation in the ICU. This included endotracheal suctioning and turning, the time required for the care, and the patients' behavioral responses. Information on arousal levels, autonomic nervous system indices, and vital signs were also obtained. The changes in indicators before and after care were then compared and analyzed.

Results

There were 14 patients in the study. The mean age of the patients was 68 years. Ninety-nine scenes of nursing care were observed, and in six of these, additional bolus sedation was administered because of the patient's significant body movements. In endotracheal suctioning, no significant changes were observed in all indicators. In turning, vital signs changed significantly, and when both were continued, all indicators changed significantly.

Conclusion

Our study found that different types and combinations of nursing care may cause different stresses to the patients. Moreover, the autonomic nervous system indices may be more likely to react to stresses in a variety of nursing care, while arousal levels may be more likely to react to burdensome stresses. If the characteristics of these physiological indicators can be understood and effectively utilized during care, it may be possible to better identify and reduce patient stress during sedation management.

Inter-Professional-Compassionate pain management during endotracheal suctioning: a valuable lesson from a Chinese surgical intensive care unit

Objective

To compare the effects of a pain management program and routine suctioning methods on the level of pain presence and agitation in Chinese adults admitted to the intensive care unit. To disseminate the results from the implementation of the evidence-informed pain management interventions for reducing pain presence and agitation during endotracheal tube suctioning (ETS) and translate the key finding to clinical nursing practice.

Methods

A quasi-experimental study of a two-group post-test design was conducted in adults admitted after surgery to a surgical intensive care unit (SICU) of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Yunnan, China in 2018. Fifty-two adults who met the study eligibility were included after consent, 26 in each group. Patients in the control group received usual care while patients in the intervention group received interventions to reduce agitation and pain-related ETS. The impacts of the intervention on the level of pain presence and agitation were measured at 5 measuring time points using the Chinese versions of Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS).

Results

The level of pain presence in the intervention group statistically significantly decreased during, immediately after, and 5 min after suctioning. The level of agitation in the intervention group significantly decreased during and immediately after suctioning.

Conclusions

The findings provide support for the positive pain-relieving effects of the evidence-informed pain-related ETS management interventions when compared with the usual ETS practice. The study interventions were sufficiently effective and safe to maintain patent airway clean and patent as standardized suctioning and helps pain relief. So, evidence-based pain-related ETS management intervention is worthy of recommending to utilize in SICU patients as well as other patients who required suctioning. It is worth noting that integrating pre-emptive analgesia prescription and administration with non-pharmacological intervention plays a critical role in achieving pain relief.

ASSESSMENT OF PROCEDURAL PAIN IN PATIENTS WITH COVID-19 IN THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT

Aim

The purpose of the study was to assess the level of procedural pain in patients treated in the COVID-19 intensive care unit, in a tertiary university hospital.

Method

We performed the procedural pain assessment of COVID-19 patients in this study, and 162 (93.6 %) of 173 hospitalized patients assessed during this period. While pain was assessed before, during, and at the 20th minute after endotracheal aspiration, wound care, and position change, which are procedural patient practices, the pain was assessed before, during, and up to the fourth hour after prone positioning, high-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT), and the non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) procedure. The Numerical Pain Scale was used for conscious patients in pain assessment, while the Behavioral Pain Scale and the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale were used for unconscious patients.

Results

Patients who underwent endotracheal aspiration, wound care, and positioning had higher pain levels during procedure than other time points. Patients in the prone position with HFOT and NIMV applied had the highest pain scores at fourth hour after procedure; this increase was statistically significant (p = .000, p < .05).

Conclusions

The study found that COVID-19 patients in the ICU had pain due to procedural practices and that the level of pain during the procedures was higher because endotracheal aspiration, wound care, and positioning were all short-term procedures. Moreover, prone positioning was found to be associated with pressure-related tissue damage, and patients' pain levels increased with the increasing duration of HFOT and NIMV procedure.

Management of procedural pain in the intensive care unit

Pain is a common experience for inpatients, and intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergo more pain than other departmental patients, with an incidence of 50% at rest and up to 80% during common care procedures. At present, the management of persistent pain in ICU patients has attracted considerable attention, and there are many related clinical studies and guidelines. However, the management of transient pain caused by certain ICU procedures has not received sufficient attention. We reviewed the different management strategies for procedural pain in the ICU and reached a conclusion. Pain management is a process of continuous quality improvement that requires multidisciplinary team cooperation, pain-related training of all relevant personnel, effective relief of all kinds of pain, and improvement of patients' quality of life. In clinical work, which involves complex and diverse patients, we should pay attention to the following points for procedural pain: (1) Consider not only the patient's persistent pain but also his or her procedural pain; (2) Conduct multimodal pain management; (3) Provide combined sedation on the basis of pain management; and (4) Perform individualized pain management. Until now, the pain management of procedural pain in the ICU has not attracted extensive attention. Therefore, we expect additional studies to solve the existing problems of procedural pain management in the ICU.

Pre-emptive remifentanil alleviates pain associated with tracheal suctioning in patients under mechanical ventilation and goal-directed sedation: A randomized controlled feasibility trial

AIMS

To investigate the efficacy of pre-emptive remifentanil in alleviating pain during tracheal suctioning in patients under mechanical ventilation.

BACKGROUND

Goal-directed sedation is recommended for patients under mechanical ventilation by the current guidelines. Whether goal-directed sedation can prevent pain during tracheal suctioning in these patients is unknown.

DESIGN

This was a two-centre, randomized, crossover, single-blind trial conducted between August and October 2019.

METHODS

Patients under mechanical ventilation received low-dose remifentanil, high-dose remifentanil or placebo prior to each tracheal suctioning in a random order. The primary outcomes were evaluated using the critical-care pain observation tool and Richmond agitation-sedation scale after tracheal suctioning. Adverse events were also documented.

RESULTS

A total of 39 patients who underwent 117 tracheal suctions were enrolled. After the tracheal suction, changes in the critical-care pain observation tool and Richmond agitation-sedation scale scores were significantly lower in the low-dose and high-dose groups than in the placebo group (P < 0.001). A non-significant increase in the absence of spontaneous breathing was observed in the high-dose group compared to that in the placebo group.

CONCLUSION

A pre-emptive remifentanil bolus of 0.5 μg/kg can mitigate the pain associated with tracheal suctioning.

Pain in intensive care unit patients-A longitudinal study

Aim

To assess occurrence of pain during the first 6 days of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and evaluate associations between occurrence of pain and selected patient-related variables.

Design

A longitudinal study.

Methods

Adult ICU patients from three units were included. Patients' pain was assessed with valid pain assessment tools every 8 hr during their first 6 days in ICU. Possible associations between occurrence of pain and selected patient-related variables were modelled using multiple logistic regression.

Results

When pain was assessed regularly with pain assessment tools, 10% of patients were in pain at rest and 27% were in pain during turning. The proportions of patients who were in pain were significantly higher for patients able to self-report pain, compared with patients not able to self-report (p < .001). Several predictors were associated with being in pain. It is important to be aware of these predictors in order to improve pain management.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU

OBJECTIVE

To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU.

DESIGN

Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017.

METHODS

Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified.

RESULTS

The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

Pain among non-verbal critically Ill mechanically ventilated patients: Prevalence, correlates and predictors

PURPOSE

To investigate pain levels and factors that are predictive of pain for mechanically ventilated patients during rest and during routine nursing procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pain levels were assessed using Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and physiological measures among 247 mechanically ventilated patients.

RESULTS

At rest, 33.2% of patients suffered pain, with a BPS > 3; of these, 10% presented significant pain levels (BPS ≥ 5). Variables that correspondingly predicted resting pain were age (β = -0.010, p < 0.001), sedation score (β = -0.153, p < 0.01), and method of ventilation (β = -0.281, p = 0.021). During the procedures, 90% of patients suffered pain, with a median BPS of 6 (IQR: 4-8), and 83% of patients experienced significant pain levels. Age (β = -0.022, p = 0.001), sedation score (β = -0.355, p < 0.001), receiving sedation and/or analgesia in last hour (β = 0.483, p = 0. 01), resting pain levels (β = -0.742, p < 0.001) and the type of painful procedure (β = -0.906, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of procedural pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Many mechanically ventilated patients suffer resting and procedural pain. Many variables were found to play a role. Clinicians need to consider these variables and intervene to decrease pain among patients at risk.

Comparison of nalbuphine and sufentanil for colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Nalbuphine is as effective as morphine as a perioperative analgesic but has not been compared directly with sufentanil in clinical trials. The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy and safety of nalbuphine with that of sufentanil in patients undergoing colonoscopy and to determine the optimal doses of nalbuphine in this indication.

METHODS

Two hundred and forty consecutive eligible patients aged 18-65 years with an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of I-II and scheduled for colonoscopy were randomly allocated to receive sufentanil 0.1 μg/kg (group S), nalbuphine 0.1 mg/kg (group N1), nalbuphine 0.15 mg/kg (group N2), or nalbuphine 0.2 mg/kg (group N3). Baseline vital signs were recorded before the procedure. The four groups were monitored for propofol sedation using the bispectral index, and pain relief was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale and the modified Behavioral Pain Scale for non-intubated patients. The incidences of respiratory depression during endoscopy, nausea, vomiting, drowsiness, and abdominal distention were recorded in the post anesthesia care unit and in the first and second 24-hour periods after colonoscopy.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in analgesia between the sufentanil group and the nalbuphine groups (p>0.05). Respiratory depression was significantly more common in group S than in groups N1 and N2 (p<0.05). The incidence of nausea was significantly higher in the nalbuphine groups than in the sufentanil group in the first 24 hours after colonoscopy (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Nalbuphine can be considered as a reasonable alternative to sufentanil in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Doses in the range of 0.1-0.2 mg/kg are recommended. The decreased risks of respiratory depression and apnea make nalbuphine suitable for patients with respiratory problems.

Pain Assessment in INTensive care (PAINT): an observational study of physician-documented pain assessment in 45 intensive care units in the United Kingdom

Pain is a common and distressing symptom experienced by intensive care patients. Assessing pain in this environment is challenging, and published guidelines have been inconsistently implemented. The Pain Assessment in INTensive care (PAINT) study aimed to evaluate the frequency and type of physician pain assessments with respect to published guidelines. This observational service evaluation considered all pain and analgesia-related entries in patients' records over a 24-h period, in 45 adult intensive care units (ICUs) in London and the South-East of England. Data were collected from 750 patients, reflecting the practice of 362 physicians. Nearly two-thirds of patients (n = 475, 64.5%, 95%CI 60.9-67.8%) received no physician-documented pain assessment during the 24-h study period. Just under one-third (n = 215, 28.6%, 95%CI 25.5-32.0%) received no nursing-documented pain assessment, and over one-fifth (n = 159, 21.2%, 95%CI 19.2-23.4)% received neither a doctor nor a nursing pain assessment. Two of the 45 ICUs used validated behavioural pain assessment tools. The likelihood of receiving a physician pain assessment was affected by the following factors: the number of nursing assessments performed; whether the patient was admitted as a surgical patient; the presence of tracheal tube or tracheostomy; and the length of stay in ICU. Physician-documented pain assessments in the majority of participating ICUs were infrequent and did not utilise recommended behavioural pain assessment tools. Further research to identify factors influencing physician pain assessment behaviour in ICU, such as human factors or cultural attitudes, is urgently needed.

Risk factors and prognosis of pain events during mechanical ventilation: a retrospective study

Background

Pain assessment is highly recommended in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. However, pain intensity and its impact on outcomes in these patients remain obscure. We collected the results of routine pain assessments, utilizing the behavioral pain scale (BPS), from 151 patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Risk factors associated with a pain event, defined as BPS of >5, and its impact on patient outcomes were investigated.

Methods

A total of 151 consecutive adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for more than 24 h in a single 10-bed ICU were enrolled in this study. The highest BPS within 48 h after the initiation of mechanical ventilation was collected, as well as information about the patients’ characteristics and medication received. We also recorded patient outcomes, including time to successful weaning from mechanical ventilation, time to successful ICU discharge, and 30-day in-hospital mortality. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors independently associated with patients with a BPS of >5. Clinical outcomes were also assessed using multivariate logistic regression analysis, correcting for risk factors.

Results

We analyzed 151 patients. The median highest BPS was 4. The percentage of patients who recorded a BPS of >5 was 19.9% (n = 30). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the disuse of fentanyl and inotropic support was an independent predictor of pain event. Multivariable Cox regression analysis suggested that the development of a BPS of >5 was associated with increased mortality and a not statistically significant trend towards prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Conclusions

A significant proportion of ventilated patients experienced a BPS of >5 soon after the initiation of mechanical ventilation. Disuse of fentanyl and use of inotropic agents increased the risk of developing a BPS of >5 during mechanical ventilation. An association between adequate analgesia and improved patient outcomes provides a rationale for the assessment of pain during mechanical ventilation, with subsequent intervention if necessary.

Pain events were common among ventilated patients. In critical care settings, appropriate and adequate pain management is warranted, given the association with improved patient outcomes.

Physiological changes associated with routine nursing procedures in critically ill are common: an observational pilot study

BACKGROUND

Nursing procedures that are routinely performed in the intensive care unit (ICU) are assumed to have minimal side effects. However, these procedures may sometimes cause physiological changes that negatively affect the patient. We hypothesized that physiological changes associated with routine nursing procedures in the ICU are common.

METHODS

A clinical observational study of 16 critically ill patients in a nine-bed mixed university hospital ICU. All nursing procedures were observed, and physiological data were collected and subsequently analyzed. Minor physiological changes were defined as minimal changes in respiratory or circulatory variables, and major physiological changes were marked as hyper/hypotension, bradycardia/tachycardia, bradypnea/tachypnea, ventilatory distress, and peripheral blood oxygen desaturation.

RESULTS

In the 16 patients, 668 procedures generated 158 major and 692 minor physiological changes during 187 observational hours. The most common procedure was patient position change, which also generated the majority of the physiological changes. The most common major physiological changes were blood oxygen desaturation, ventilatory distress, and hypotension, and the most common minor changes were arterial pressure alteration, coughing, and increase in respiratory rate.

CONCLUSION

In this pilot study, we examined physiological changes in connection with all regular routine nursing procedures in the ICU. We found that physiological changes were common and sometimes severe.

Psychometric validation of the behavioral indicators of pain scale for the assessment of pain in mechanically ventilated and unable to self-report critical care patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess the psychometric properties of the behavioral indicators of pain scale (ESCID) when applied to a wide range of medical and surgical critical patients.

DESIGN

A multicentre, prospective observational study was designed to validate a scale measuring instrument.

SETTING

Twenty Intensive Care Units of 14 hospitals belonging to the Spanish National Health System.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 286 mechanically ventilated, unable to self-report critically ill medical and surgical adult patients.

PROCEDURE

Pain levels were measured by two independent evaluators simultaneously, using two scales: ESCID and the behavioral pain scale (BPS). Pain was observed before, during, and after two painful procedures (turning, tracheal suctioning) and one non-painful procedure.

MAIN VARIABLES

ESCID reliability was measured on the basis of internal consistency using the Cronbach-α coefficient. Inter-rater and intra-rater agreement were measured. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to assess the correlation between ESCID and BPS.

RESULTS

A total of 4386 observations were made in 286 patients (62% medical and 38% surgical). High correlation was found between ESCID and BPS (r=0.94-0.99; p<0.001), together with high intra-rater and inter-rater concordance. ESCID was internally reliable, with a Cronbach-α value of 0.85 (95%CI 0.81-0.88). Cronbach-α coefficients for ESCID domains were high: facial expression 0.87 (95%CI 0.84-0.89), calmness 0.84 (95%CI 0.81-0.87), muscle tone 0.80 (95%CI 0.75-0.84), compliance with mechanical ventilation 0.70 (95%CI 0.63-0.75) and consolability 0.85 (95%CI 0.81-0.88).

CONCLUSION

ESCID is valid and reliable for measuring pain in mechanically ventilated unable to self-report medical and surgical critical care patients. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01744717.

Measurement of Heart Rate Variability to Assess Pain in Sedated Critically Ill Patients: A Prospective Observational Study

Introduction

The analgesia nociception index (ANI) assesses the relative parasympathetic tone as a surrogate for antinociception/nociception balance in sedated patients. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of ANI in detecting pain in deeply sedated critically ill patients.

Methods

This prospective observational study was performed in two medical ICUs. All patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and deep sedation were eligible. In all patients, heart rate and ANI were continuously recorded using the Physiodoloris^® device during 5 minutes at rest (T1), during a painful stimulus (T2), and during 5 minutes after the end of the painful stimulus (T3). The chosen painful stimulus was patient turning for washstand. Pain was evaluated at T2, using the behavioral pain scale (BPS). The primary objective was to determine the effectiveness of ANI in detecting pain. Secondary objectives included the impact of norepinephrine on the effectiveness of ANI in detecting pain, and the correlation between ANI and BPS.

Results

Forty-one patients were included. ANI was significantly lower at T2 (Med (IQR) 69(55–78)) compared with T1 (85(67–96), p<0.0001), or T3 (81(63–89), p<0.0001). Similar results were found in the subgroups of patients with (n = 21) or without (n = 20) norepinephrine. ANI values were significantly higher in patients with norepinephrine compared with those without norepinephrine at T1, and T2. No significant correlation was found between ANI and BPS at T2.

Conclusions

ANI is effective in detecting pain in deeply sedated critically ill patients, including those patients treated with norepinephrine. No significant correlation was found between ANI and BPS.