Dataset Information

Assessing pain in the postoperative period: Analgesia Nociception IndexTMversus pupillometry.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Potential methods for objective assessment of postoperative pain include the Analgesia Nociception Index™ (ANI), a real-time index of the parasympathetic tone, the pupillary light reflex (PLR), and the variation coefficient of pupillary diameter (VCPD), a measure of pupillary diameter (PD) fluctuations. Until now, the literature is divided as to their respective accuracy magnitudes for assessing a patient's pain. The VCPD has been demonstrated to strongly correlate with pain in an obstetrical population. However, the pain induced by obstetrical labour is different, given its intermittent nature, than the pain observed during the postoperative period. The aim of the current study was to compare the respective values of these variables at VAS scores ?4. METHODS:After approval by the Ethics Committee, 345 patients aged on average 50 (SD 17) yr (range: 18-91 yr) of age were included. The protocols of general anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia were left to the anaesthetist's discretion. Some 40 min after tracheal intubation, VAS, ANI, PD, PLR, and VCPD values were recorded. RESULTS:VCPD correlates more strongly (r=0.78) with pain as assessed with the VAS than ANI (r=-0.15). PD and PLR are not statistically correlated with VAS. The ability of VCPD to assess the pain of patients (VAS?4) is strong [area under the curve (AUC): 0.92, confidence interval (CI): 0.89-0.95], and better than for ANI (AUC: 0.39, CI: 0.33-0.45). CONCLUSIONS:Our study suggests that VCPD could be a useful tool for monitoring pain in conscious patients during the postoperative period. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT03267979.

SUBMITTER: Charier D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6676014 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing pain in the postoperative period: Analgesia Nociception Index<sup>TM</sup>versus pupillometry.

Charier David D Vogler Marie-Charlotte MC Zantour Daniel D Pichot Vincent V Martins-Baltar Alexandre A Courbon Marjolaine M Roche Frédéric F Vassal François F Molliex Serge S

British journal of anaesthesia 20190126 2

<h4>Background</h4>Potential methods for objective assessment of postoperative pain include the Analgesia Nociception Index™ (ANI), a real-time index of the parasympathetic tone, the pupillary light reflex (PLR), and the variation coefficient of pupillary diameter (VCPD), a measure of pupillary diameter (PD) fluctuations. Until now, the literature is divided as to their respective accuracy magnitudes for assessing a patient's pain. The VCPD has been demonstrated to strongly correlate with pain i ...[more]

PMID: 30915996

Similar Datasets

Project description:There are many surgical operations performed daily in operation rooms worldwide. Adequate anesthesia is needed during an operation. Besides hypnosis, adequate analgesia is critical to prevent autonomic reactions. Clinical experience and vital signs are usually used to adjust the dosage of analgesics. Analgesia nociception index (ANI), which ranges from 0 to 100, is derived from heart rate variability (HRV) via electrocardiogram (ECG) signals, for pain evaluation in a non-invasive manner. It represents parasympathetic activity. In this study, we compared the performance of multilayer perceptron (MLP) and long short-term memory (LSTM) algorithms in predicting expert assessment of pain score (EAPS) based on patient's HRV during surgery. The objective of this study was to analyze how deep learning models differed from the medical doctors' predictions of EAPS. As the input and output features of the deep learning models, the opposites of ANI and EAPS were used. This study included 80 patients who underwent operations at National Taiwan University Hospital. Using MLP and LSTM, a holdout method was first applied to 60 training patients, 10 validation patients, and 10 testing patients. As compared to the LSTM model, which had a testing mean absolute error (MAE) of 2.633 ± 0.542, the MLP model had a testing MAE of 2.490 ± 0.522, with a more appropriate shape of its prediction curves. The model based on MLP was selected as the best. Using MLP, a seven-fold cross validation method was then applied. The first fold had the lowest testing MAE of 2.460 ± 0.634, while the overall MAE for the seven-fold cross validation method was 2.848 ± 0.308. In conclusion, HRV analysis using MLP algorithm had a good correlation with EAPS; therefore, it can play role as a continuous monitor to predict intraoperative pain levels, to assist physicians in adjusting analgesic agent dosage. Further studies may consider obtaining more input features, such as photoplethysmography (PPG) and other kinds of continuous variable, to improve the prediction performance.

Project description:Background:The clinical efficacy of fentanyl for pain control differs greatly across individuals. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of CYP3A4*1G polymorphism including wild-type homozygote (CYP3A4*1/*1, GG), mutant heterozygote (CYP3A4*1/*1G, GA), and mutant homozygote (CYP3A4*1G/*1G, AA) on fentanyl analgesia in Chinese patients undergoing hysteroscopy by the assessment of analgesia nociception index (ANI). Methods:A total of 200 gynecologic patients scheduled for elective hysteroscopy under general anesthesia at Peking University People's Hospital from May to December in 2017 were enrolled in this study. Venous blood was withdrawn for genotyping of CYP3A4*1G before operation. Fentanyl 1 ?g/kg was administered preoperatively followed by target-controlled infusion of propofol for induction and maintenance. Intraoperative analgesic efficacy of fentanyl was assessed by ANI monitoring at T0 (entering room), T1 (cervical dilation), T2 (start of cervical aspiration), and T3 (end of cervical aspiration) time points. The duration of propofol infusion and total dosage of propofol were recorded as well. Results:The patients were divided into three groups according to CYP3A4*1G polymorphism, including 143 in GG group, 47 in GA group, and 10 in AA group. There was no significant difference in clinical demographics among three groups. The frequency of CYP3A4*1G variant alleles accounted for 16.8% and the distribution of variant alleles was consistent with Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Using a multilevel model, ANI values at T1 (63.81 ± 19.61), T2 (63.63 ± 17.82), and T3 (65.68 ± 17.79) were significantly lower than that at T0 (77.16 ± 12.93) in the study population (F = 23.50, P < 0.001), suggesting that higher levels of pain at T1, T2, and T3 than T0. Patients with GG genotype showed significantly lower ANI than those with GA or AA genotypes during hysteroscopy under the same dose of fentanyl. Conclusion:CYP3A4*1G polymorphism associated with the analgesic efficacy of intraoperative fentanyl in the patients undergoing hysteroscopy under general anesthesia.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2006. Patients may control postoperative pain by self administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient controlled analgesia or PCA). A 1992 meta-analysis by Ballantyne et al found a strong patient preference for PCA over non-patient controlled analgesia, but disclosed no differences in analgesic consumption or length of postoperative hospital stay. Although Ballantyne's meta-analysis found that PCA did have a small but statistically significant benefit upon pain intensity, a 2001 review by Walder et al did not find statistically significant differences in pain intensity or pain relief between PCA and groups treated with non-patient controlled analgesia. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia (termed PCA in this review) versus non-patient controlled opioid analgesia of as-needed opioid analgesia for postoperative pain relief. SEARCH METHODS:We ran the search for the previous review in November 2004. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1966 to 28 January 2015), and EMBASE (1980 to 28 January 2015) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language, and reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA:We selected RCTs that assessed pain intensity as a primary or secondary outcome. These studies compared PCA without a continuous background infusion with non-patient controlled opioid analgesic regimens. We excluded studies that explicitly stated they involved patients with chronic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors independently extracted data, which included demographic variables, type of surgery, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events. We graded each included study for methodological quality by assessing risk of bias and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence. We performed meta-analysis of outcomes that included pain intensity assessed by a 0 to 100 visual analog scale (VAS), opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, length of stay, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS:Forty-nine studies with 1725 participants receiving PCA and 1687 participants assigned to a control group met the inclusion criteria. The original review included 55 studies with 2023 patients receiving PCA and 1838 patients assigned to a control group. There were fewer included studies in our updated review due to the revised exclusion criteria. For the primary outcome, participants receiving PCA had lower VAS pain intensity scores versus non-patient controlled analgesia over most time intervals, e.g., scores over 0 to 24 hours were nine points lower (95% confidence interval (CI) -13 to -5, moderate quality evidence) and over 0 to 48 hours were 10 points lower (95% CI -12 to -7, low quality evidence). Among the secondary outcomes, participants were more satisfied with PCA (81% versus 61%, P value = 0.002) and consumed higher amounts of opioids than controls (0 to 24 hours, 7 mg more of intravenous morphine equivalents, 95% CI 1 mg to 13 mg). Those receiving PCA had a higher incidence of pruritus (15% versus 8%, P value = 0.01) but had a similar incidence of other adverse events. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Since the last version of this review, we have found new studies providing additional information. We reanalyzed the data but the results did not substantially alter any of our previously published conclusions. This review provides moderate to low quality evidence that PCA is an efficacious alternative to non-patient controlled systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control.

Dataset Information

Assessing pain in the postoperative period: Analgesia Nociception IndexTMversus pupillometry.

Publications

Assessing pain in the postoperative period: Analgesia Nociception Index<sup>TM</sup>versus pupillometry.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets