Pain intensity of sedated paediatric intensive care unit patients during treatment and care procedures

A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations for the management of pain, sedation, delirium and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in pediatric intensive care

Introduction

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and recommendations for managing pain, sedation, delirium, and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in pediatric intensive care (PICU). The objectives included evaluating the quality of recommendations, synthesizing recommendations, harmonizing the strength of the recommendation (SoR) and the certainty of evidence (CoE), and assessing the relevance of supporting evidence.

Methods

A comprehensive search in four electronic databases (Medline, Embase.com, CINAHL and JBI EBP Database), 9 guideline repositories, and 13 professional societies was conducted to identify CPGs published from January 2010 to the end of May 2023 in any language. The quality of CPGs and recommendations was assessed using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instruments. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize recommendations, and the GRADE SoR and CoE harmonization method was used to interpret the credibility of summary recommendations.

Results

A total of 18 CPGs and 170 recommendations were identified. Most CPGs were of medium-quality, and three were classified as high. A total of 30 summary recommendations were synthesized across each condition, focused on common management approaches. There was inconsistency in the SoRs and CoE for summary recommendations, those for assessment showed the highest consistency, the remaining were conditional, inconsistent, inconclusive, and lacked support from evidence.

Conclusion

This systematic review provides an overview of the quality of CPGs for these four conditions in the PICU. While three CPGs achieved high-quality ratings, the overall findings reveal gaps in the evidence base of recommendations, patient and family involvement, and resources for implementation. The findings highlight the need for more rigorous and evidence-based approaches in the development and reporting of CPGs to enhance their trustworthiness. Further research is necessary to enhance the quality of recommendations for this setting. The results of this review can provide a valuable foundation for future CPG development.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=274364, PROSPERO (CRD42021274364).

Pain management of nalbuphine and sufentanil in patients admitted intensive care unit of different ages

Background

Pain relief for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) can improve treatment outcomes and reduce the burden on doctors and nurses. This study aims to report the clinical analgesic and sedative effects of nalbuphine and sufentanil on ICU patients.

Methods

This study retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 87 critically ill patients who received nalbuphine or sufentanil infusion in the ICU, including demographic data, diagnosis, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2). The primary outcomes of this study were CPOT and RASS scores. The secondary outcomes were hemodynamic changes, including systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, and SpO2. The adverse events recorded during pain management, such as hypoxemia, respiration depression and bradycardia, were also collected and analyzed.

Results

None of the patients in both groups experienced episode of hypoxemia, respiration depression and bradycardia. However, age-stratified analyses showed that nalbuphine has a better analgesic effect than sufentanil for patients aged ≤ 60 (P < 0.05). In contrast, sufentanil showed a better analgesic effect than nalbuphine for patients aged > 60 ( P < 0.05). Furthermore, nalbuphine has a significantly better sedative effect than sufentanil for patients aged ≤ 60 (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

ICU patients of different age groups may be suitable for different analgesics. For patients under the age of 60, nalbuphine has better analgesia and sedation than sufentanil, and does not cause respiratory depression and drastic hemodynamic changes.