Use of analgesics in the intensive care unit: who says it hurts?

Decreasing severe pain and serious adverse events while moving intensive care unit patients: a prospective interventional study (the NURSE-DO project)

INTRODUCTION

A quality-improvement project was conducted to reduce severe pain and stress-related events while moving ICU-patients.

METHODS

The Plan-Do-Check-Adjust cycle was studied during four one-month phases, separated by five-month interphases. All consecutive patients staying more than 24 hours were evaluated every morning while being moved for nursing care (bathing, massage, sheet-change, repositioning). Phase 1 was considered as the baseline. Implemented and adjusted quality-interventions were assessed at phases 2 and 3, respectively. An independent post-intervention control-audit was performed at Phase 4. Primary-endpoints were the incidence of severe pain defined by a behavioral pain scale > 5 or a 0 to 10 visual numeric rating scale > 6, and the incidence of serious adverse events (SAE): cardiac arrest, arrhythmias, tachycardia, bradycardia, hypertension, hypotension, desaturation, bradypnea or ventilatory distress. Pain, SAE, patients' characteristics and analgesia were compared among the phases by a multivariate mixed-effects model for repeated-measurements, adjusted on severity index, age, admission type (medical/surgical), intubation and sedation status.

RESULTS

During the four studied phases, 630 care procedures were analyzed in 53, 47, 43 and 50 patients, respectively. Incidence of severe pain decreased significantly from 16% (baseline) to 6% in Phase 3 (odds ratio (OR) = 0.33 (0.11; 0.98), P = 0.04) and 2% in Phase 4 (OR = 0.30 (0.12; 0.95), P = 0.02). Incidence of SAE decreased significantly from 37% (baseline) to 17% in Phase 3 and 21% in Phase 4. In multivariate analysis, SAE were independently associated with Phase 3 (OR = 0.40 (0.23; 0.72), P < 0.01), Phase 4 (OR = 0.53 (0.30; 0.92), P = 0.03), intubation status (OR = 1.91 (1.28; 2.85), P < 0.01) and severe pain (OR = 2.74 (1.54; 4.89), P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Severe pain and serious adverse events are common and strongly associated while moving ICU patients for nursing procedures. Quality improvement of pain management is associated with a decrease of serious adverse events. Careful documentation of pain management during mobilization for nursing procedures could be implemented as a health quality indicator in the ICU.

Analgesic efficacy and haemodynamic effects of nefopam in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

Pain management is challenging in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The analgesic efficacy, tolerance, and haemodynamic effects of nefopam have never been described in critically ill patients.

METHODS

In consecutive medical-surgical ICU patients who received 20 mg of nefopam i.v. over 30 min, we measured pain, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS), respiratory parameters, and adverse drug events at T0 (baseline), T30 (end-of-infusion), T60, and T90 min. Haemodynamic variables were assessed every 15 min from T0 to T60 and T90. Pain was evaluated by the behavioural pain scale (BPS, 3-12) or by the self-reported visual numeric rating scale (NRS, 0-10) according to communication capacity.

RESULTS

Data were analysed for 59 patients. As early as T30, median NRS and BPS decreased significantly from T0 to a minimum level at T60 for NRS [5 (4-7) vs 1 (1-3), P<0.001] and T90 for BPS [5 (5-6) vs 3 (3-4), P<0.001]. No significant changes were detected for RASS, ventilatory frequency, or oxygen saturation. Increased heart rate and decreased mean arterial pressure, defined as a change ≥15% from baseline, were found in 29% and 27% of patients, respectively. For the 18 patients monitored, cardiac output increased by 19 (7-29)% and systemic vascular resistance decreased by 20 (8-28)%, both maximally at T30. Heat sensation, nausea/vomiting, sweating, and mouth dryness were found, respectively, in 6%, 9%, 22%, and 38% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A single slow infusion of nefopam is effective in critically ill patients who have moderate pain. The risk of tachycardia and increased cardiac output and also hypotension and decreased systemic vascular resistance should be known to evaluate the benefit/risk ratio of its prescription.

Impact of systematic evaluation of pain and agitation in an intensive care unit*

OBJECTIVE

To measure the impact of implementation of the systematic evaluation of pain and agitation by nurses using the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, and the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) associated with medical staff education in analgesia and sedation management in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

DESIGN

Two-phase, prospective, controlled study.

SETTING

Twelve-bed medical-surgical ICU in a university hospital.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients staying >24 hrs in ICU.

INTERVENTIONS

BPS, NRS, and RASS were measured twice daily, at rest, by independent observers during 21 wks (control group) and after 4 wks of training, by nurses during 29 wks (intervention group). In the intervention group, the treating physician was alerted in case of pain defined by BPS>5 or NRS>3 or in case of agitation defined by RASS>1.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 230 patients were included (control group, n=100; intervention group, n=130). Baseline characteristics were not significantly different. The incidence of pain and agitation decreased significantly in the intervention group: 63% vs. 42% (p=.002) and 29% vs. 12% (p=.002), respectively. Rate of severe pain and agitation events defined by NRS>6 and RASS>2, respectively, also decreased significantly. There were significantly more therapeutic changes in the intervention group in the way of an escalation but also in the way of a de-escalation for analgesic and psychoactive drugs. Compared with the control group, there was a marked decrease in the duration of mechanical ventilation (120 [interquartile range 48-312] vs. 65 (24-192) hrs, p=.01) and nosocomial infections rate (17% vs. 8%, p<.05) in the intervention group. There was no significant difference in median length of stay (9 [4, 15] vs. 7 [4, 13] days) and mortality in ICU (12 vs. 15%).

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic evaluation of pain and agitation, and analgesics and sedatives need was associated with a decrease in incidence of pain and agitation, duration of mechanical ventilation and nosocomial infections.

Palliative care in the intensive care unit: barriers, advances, and unmet needs

The concept that critical illness and terminal illness are necessarily distinct entities has given way to the understanding that they often exist on the same spectrum. Consequently, there is growing consensus that palliative treatment must coexist with attempts at restorative treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU). Palliative care in the ICU has evolved from a relatively one-dimensional construct of terminal sedation in dying patients to a multidisciplinary field addressing symptom control, physician-patient-family communication,spiritual needs, and the needs of health care providers. As ongoing research efforts yield new insights, our ability to practice evidence-based palliative care in the ICU will grow, and new avenues for improvement will become evident.