Use of the critical-care pain observation tool and the bispectral index for the detection of pain in brain-injured patients undergoing mechanical ventilation: A STROBE-compliant observational study

Current Trends in Modalities of Pain Assessment: A Narrative Review

Pain is a common complaint among a spectrum of diseases. Although an ideal objective method of pain assessment is lacking, several validated tools are available for use in clinical research and practice. The tool considerations are based upon the parameters to be assessed and factors specific to patient, disease, and availability of instruments. This review classifies and brings the key aspects of currently available pain assessment tools on a single platform to ease the selection process for researchers/practitioners. The tools utilized for pain assessment were collected from articles available in PubMed and Google Scholar databases and classified into the following domains: unidimensional, multi-dimensional, investigation-based, and computerized algorithm-based tools. Their purpose of use and limitations are reviewed. The unidimensional scales are used to describe only the characteristics of pain, like intensity (e.g. numerical rating scale), type (e.g. neuropathic pain questionnaire), or pattern. In contrast, multi-dimensional tools, like Mc Gill Questionnaire, assess not only pain as an individual symptom but also its influence on physical functioning and general well-being. However, certain components like ethnicity, age, cognitive impairment, sedation, and emotion become a limiting factor in selecting the scale. In addition to these scales, a potential role of parameters such as biopotentials/markers has also been shown in pain assessment. Last, artificial intelligence is also being applied in evaluation of pain. Pain measurement is subjective in nature as assessed through questionnaires and observational tools. Currently, multi-dimensional approaches of pain assessment are available, which can lead to precision pain management.

Feasibility of low-dose dexmedetomidine for prevention of postoperative delirium after intracranial operations: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Background

Clinical trials have shown that dexmedetomidine might decrease the occurrence of postoperative delirium after major surgery, but neurosurgical patients were excluded from these studies. We aimed to determine the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial of the effect of prophylactic low-dose dexmedetomidine on postoperative delirium in patients after elective intracranial operation for brain tumors.

Methods

In this single-center, parallel-arm pilot randomized controlled trial, adult patients who underwent an elective intracranial operation for brain tumors were recruited. Dexmedetomidine (0.1 μg/kg/hour) or placebo was continuously infused from intensive care unit (ICU) admission on the day of surgery until 08:00 AM on postoperative day one. Adverse events during the study-drug administration were recorded. The primary feasibility endpoint was the occurrence of study-drug interruption. Delirium was assessed twice daily with the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU during the first five postoperative days. The assessable rate of delirium evaluation was documented.

Results

Sixty participants were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine (n = 30) or placebo (n = 30). The study-drug was stopped in two patients (6.7%) in the placebo group due to desaturation after new-onset unconsciousness and an unplanned reoperation for hematoma evacuation and in one patient (3.3%) in the dexmedetomidine group due to unplanned discharge from the ICU. The absolute difference (95% confidence interval) of study-drug interruption between the two groups was 3.3% (− 18.6 to 12.0%), with a noninferiority P value of 0.009. During the study-drug infusion, no bradycardia occurred, and hypotension occurred in one patient (3.3%) in the dexmedetomidine group. Dexmedetomidine tended to decrease the incidence of tachycardia (10.0% vs. 23.3%) and hypertension (3.3% vs. 23.3%). Respiratory depression, desaturation, and unconsciousness occurred in the same patient with study-drug interruption in the placebo group (3.3%). Delirium was evaluated 600 times, of which 590 (98.3%) attempts were assessable except in one patient in the placebo group who remained in a coma after an unplanned reoperation.

Conclusions

The low rate of study-drug interruption and high assessable rate of delirium evaluation supported a fully powered trial to determine the effectiveness of low-dose dexmedetomidine on postoperative delirium in patients after intracranial operation for brain tumors.

Trial registration

The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04494828) on 31/07/2020.

Cerebral monitoring in surgical ICU patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To give an overview of cerebral monitoring techniques for surgical ICU patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

As the burden of postsurgical neurological and neurocognitive complications becomes increasingly recognized, cerebral monitoring in the surgical ICU might gain a relevant role in detecting and possibly preventing adverse outcomes. However, identifying neurological alterations in surgical ICU patients, who are often sedated and mechanically ventilated, can be challenging. Various noninvasive and invasive techniques are available for cerebral monitoring, providing an assessment of cortical electrical activity, cerebral oxygenation, blood flow autoregulation, intracranial pressure, and cerebral metabolism. These techniques can be used for the diagnosis of subclinical seizures, the assessment of sedation depth and delirium, the detection of an impaired cerebral blood flow, and the diagnosis of neurosurgical complications.

SUMMARY

Cerebral monitoring can be a valuable tool in the early detection of adverse outcomes in surgical ICU patients, but the evidence is limited, and clear clinical indications are still lacking.

Verification of the critical-care pain observation tool in conscious patients with hemiparesis or cognitive dysfunction

PURPOSE

Altered cognition or hemiparesis can occur in neurocritical but conscious patients, and recognizing pain is challenging. This study aimed to test the reliability and validity of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) in this specific group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective study included ventilated, conscious patients who had certain neurologic deficits. CPOT scores were assessed before and after nociceptive (turning the patient) and non-nociceptive (measuring body temperature) procedures. The patients' self-reported pain was also recorded using a numerical rating scale (NRS).

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients were enrolled. The intraclass correlation coefficient was r = 0.975-1.000 (p < 0.001) for turning the patient. Discriminant validation indicated that CPOT scores were significantly higher after turning the patient compared with measuring body temperature (p = 0.025). CPOT scores were positively correlated with NRS when turning the patient (r = 0.724, p < 0.001). After turning, the mean increase in CPOT score was lower in the patients with hemiparesis than in those without hemiparesis (p = 0.079), however it was significantly higher in the patients with cognitive dysfunction compared to those without cognitive dysfunction (p = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

The CPOT is an appropriate instrument to assess pain in conscious patients, particularly those with cognitive dysfunction. The influence of hemiparesis on the CPOT is noteworthy.

Validation of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool-Neuro in brain-injured adults in the intensive care unit: a prospective cohort study

Background

Pain assessment in brain-injured patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is challenging and existing scales may not be representative of behavioral reactions expressed by this specific group. This study aimed to validate the French-Canadian and English revised versions of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT-Neuro) for brain-injured ICU patients.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted in three Canadian and one American sites. Patients with a traumatic or a non-traumatic brain injury were assessed with the CPOT-Neuro by trained raters (i.e., research staff and ICU nurses) before, during, and after nociceptive procedures (i.e., turning and other) and non-nociceptive procedures (i.e., non-invasive blood pressure, soft touch). Patients who were conscious and delirium-free were asked to provide their self-report of pain intensity (0–10). A first data set was completed for all participants (n = 226), and a second data set (n = 87) was obtained when a change in the level of consciousness (LOC) was observed after study enrollment. Three LOC groups were included: (a) unconscious (Glasgow Coma Scale or GCS 4–8); (b) altered LOC (GCS 9–12); and (c) conscious (GCS 13–15).

Results

Higher CPOT-Neuro scores were found during nociceptive procedures compared to rest and non-nociceptive procedures in both data sets (p < 0.001). CPOT-Neuro scores were not different across LOC groups. Moderate correlations between CPOT-Neuro and self-reported pain intensity scores were found at rest and during nociceptive procedures (Spearman rho > 0.40 and > 0.60, respectively). CPOT-Neuro cut-off scores ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 were found to adequately classify mild to severe self-reported pain ≥ 1 and moderate to severe self-reported pain ≥ 5, respectively. Interrater reliability of raters’ CPOT-Neuro scores was supported with intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.69.

Conclusions

The CPOT-Neuro was found to be valid in this multi-site sample of brain-injured ICU patients at various LOC. Implementation studies are necessary to evaluate the tool’s performance in clinical practice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03561-1.

Consensus Statement on Analgo-sedation in Neurocritical Care and Review of Literature

Aim and objective

Our main objective in developing this consensus is to bring together a set of most agreed-upon statements from a panel of global experts that would act as a guide for clinicians working in neurocritical care units (NCCUs).

Background

Given the physiological benefits of analgo-sedation in the NCCU, there is little information on their tailoring in the NCCU. This lack of evidence and guidelines on the use of sedation and analgesia in patients with neurological injury leads to a variation in clinical care based on patient requirements and institutional protocols.

Review results

Thirty-nine international experts agreed to be a member of this consensus panel. A Delphi method based on a Web-based questionnaire developed with Google Forms on a secure institute server was used to seek opinions of experts. Questions were related to sedation and analgesia in the neurocritical care unit. A predefined threshold of agreement was established as 70% to support any recommendation, strong, moderate, or weak. No recommendations were made below this threshold. Responses were collected from all the experts, summated, and expressed as percentage (%). After three rounds, consensus could be reached for 6 statements related to analgesia and 5 statements related to sedation. Consensus could not be reached for 10 statements related to analgesia and 5 statements related to sedation.

Conclusion

This global consensus statement may help in guiding practitioners in clinical decision-making regarding analgo-sedation in the NCCUs, thereby helping in improving patient recovery profiles.

Clinical significance

In the lack of high-level evidence, the recommendations may be seen as the current best clinical practice.

How to cite this article

Prabhakar H, Tripathy S, Gupta N, Singhal V, Mahajan C, Kapoor I, et al. Consensus Statement on Analgo-sedation in Neurocritical Care and Review of Literature. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(2):126–133.

Dexmedetomidine for the prevention of postoperative delirium in patients after intracranial operation for brain tumours (DEPOD study): a study protocol and statistical plan for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative delirium (POD) is prevalent in patients after major surgery and is associated with adverse outcomes. Several studies have reported that dexmedetomidine, a highly selective α2-adrenergic receptor agonist, can decrease the incidence of POD. However, neurosurgical patients are usually excluded from previous studies. The present study was designed to investigate the impact of prophylactic use of low-dose dexmedetomidine on the incidence of POD in patients after intracranial operation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre, randomised, double-blinded and placebo-controlled trial. Seven hundred intensive care unit admitted patients after elective intracranial operation for brain tumours under general anaesthesia are randomly assigned to the dexmedetomidine group or the placebo group with a 1:1 ratio. For patients in the dexmedetomidine group, a continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine will be started at a rate of 0.1 μg/kg/hour immediately after enrolment on the day of operation and continued until 08:00 on postoperative day 1. For patients in the placebo group, normal saline will be administered at the same rate as in the dexmedetomidine group. The patients will be followed up for 28 days after enrolment. The primary endpoint is the incidence of POD, which is assessed two times per day using the Confusion Assessment Method for the intensive care unit (ICU), during the first 5 postoperative days. The secondary endpoints include the incidence of dexmedetomidine-related adverse events and non-delirium complications, the length of stay in the ICU and hospital and all-cause 28-day mortality after the operation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Beijing Tiantan Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University (No KY2019-091-02) and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The results of the trial will be presented at national and international conferences relevant to subject fields and submitted to international peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Trial registration number: NCT04399343; Pre-results.

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) in ICU Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The critical care pain observation tool (CPOT) has been widely used to assess pain in ICU patients, and its validity and reliability have been tested in various contexts.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the CPOT in critically ill patients, a systematic review of diagnostic studies was performed.

METHODS

A database search (PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, ProQuest, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, COVIP, CBM) was conducted, as was the manual identification of eligible papers from citations. Eligible studies were published between 2006 and February 2020. Quality appraisal of the studies was carried out with the QUADAS-2 checklist, and data extraction was performed in alignment with STARD 2015. Open Meta Analyst was used for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 25 articles involving 1920 subjects with 3493 experimental results were included. Most of the studies were of fair quality. A high degree of heterogeneity (I² = 57.2%, P < 0.001) was discovered. The Youden index values were 1.56 and 1.55 when the CPOT threshold was set at two and three, respectively. The diagnostic performance of the CPOT was affected by the reference standard. The CPOT had a higher diagnostic odds ratio of 11.52 (95% CI: 7.42-17.87) during nociceptive procedures compared with 9.14 (95% CI: 5.38-15.53) at rest or during non-nociceptive procedures.

CONCLUSION

CPOT has moderate diagnostic parameters with a threshold of two or three, suggesting that it is a fair but not excellent tool. More research on the validity of the CPOT in specific subgroups is needed to broaden its applicability in critical care.

Assessing pain in critically ill brain-injured patients: a psychometric comparison of 3 pain scales and videopupillometry

Three clinical scales (the Nociception Coma Scale adapted for Intubated patients [NCS-I], its Revised version [NCS-R-I], and the Behavioral Pain Scale [BPS]) and videopupillometry were compared for measuring pain in intubated, noncommunicating, critically ill, brain-injured patients. Pain assessment was performed before, during, just after, and 5 minutes after 3 procedures: the reference non-nociceptive procedure (assessment of the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale) and 2 nociceptive procedures (turning and tracheal suctioning). The primary endpoint was construct validity (discriminant and criterion validation), determined by comparing pain measurements between different times/procedures. Secondary endpoints were internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and feasibility. Fifty patients (54% women, median age 63 years [56-68]) were included 13 [7-24] days after brain injury (76% hemorrhagic or ischemic strokes). All tools increased significantly more (P < 0.001) during the nociceptive procedures vs the non-nociceptive procedure. The BPS was the only pain tool that did not increase significantly during the non-nociceptive procedure (P = 0.41), suggesting that it was the most discriminant tool. The BPS, NCS-I, and NCS-R-I were good predictors of nociception with areas under the curves ≥0.96, contrary to videopupillometry (area under the curve = 0.67). The BPS, NCS-I, and NCS-I-R had high inter-rater reliabilities (weighted kappa = 0.86, 0.82 and 0.84, respectively). Internal consistency was moderate (>0.60) for all pain scales. Factor analysis represented a majority of information on a first dimension, with motor domains represented on a second dimension. Scale feasibility was better for the NCS-I and NCS-R-I than for the BPS. In conclusion, the BPS, NCS-I, and NCS-R-I are valid, reliable, and acceptable pain scales for use in intubated critically ill, brain-injured patients, unlike videopupillometry. Future research requires tool design centered on domains of observation adapted to this very specific population.

A Psychometric Analysis Update of Behavioral Pain Assessment Tools for Noncommunicative, Critically Ill Adults

This is an updated, comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of behavioral pain assessment tools for use with noncommunicative, critically ill adults. Articles were searched in 5 health databases. A total of 106 articles were analyzed, including 54 recently published papers. Nine behavioral pain assessment tools developed for noncommunicative critically ill adults and 4 tools developed for other non-communicative populations were included. The scale development process, reliability, validity, feasibility, and clinical utility were analyzed using a 0 to 20 scoring system, and quality of evidence was also evaluated. The Behavioral Pain Scale, the Behavioral Pain Scale-Nonintubated, and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool remain the tools with the strongest psychometric properties, with validation testing having been conducted in multiple countries and various languages. Other tools may be good alternatives, but additional research on them is necessary.

Vital signs fluctuations and their relationship with pain in the brain-injured adult critically ill - A repeated-measures descriptive-correlational study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the use of vital signs for pain detection in brain-injured patients in the intensive care unit.

DESIGN

A repeated-measures descriptive-correlational study.

SETTING

Two neurological intensive care units in Montréal, Canada. A total of 101 brain-injured patients were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

This study examined the fluctuations in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart and respiratory rates, and oxygen saturation in brain-injured critically ill patients before, during, and 15 minutes after turning and soft touch using a data collection computer. When possible, patients' pain self-reports were obtained using a 0-10 Faces Pain Thermometer.

RESULTS

The heart and respiratory rates were higher during turning than soft touch and higher during the procedure compared to prior (p < 0.05), but their fluctuation was modest. The systolic blood pressure increased during both turning and soft touch by 2 mmHg, but was 26.6 mmHg higher for those who reported pain versus no pain (Mann-Whitney = 25.00, p = 0.008, n = 28). A moderate correlation was observed between the systolic blood pressure (Spearman's rho = 0.617, p = 0.004, n = 24) and self-reported pain intensity during turning. No significant effects were observed for diastolic blood pressure and oxygen saturation.

CONCLUSION

Only increases in systolic blood pressure were positively associated with pain in this sample and replication studies with larger samples is needed.