Dataset Information

Measurement of the nociceptive flexion reflex threshold in critically ill patients – a randomized observational pilot study

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pain detection and treatment is a major challenge in the care of critically ill patients, rendered more complex by the need to take into consideration the risk of insufficient or excessive analgesia. The nociceptive flexion reflex threshold (NFRT) has become the established basis for measuring the level of analgesia in the perioperative context. However, it remains unclear whether NFRT measurement can be usefully applied to mechanically ventilated, analgosedated critically ill patients who are unable to communicate. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate whether there is an association between the NFRT measurement and the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) in critically ill, analgosedated, and mechanically ventilated patients and whether the NFRT measurement can also detect potential excessive analgesia.

Methods

This prospective, observational, randomized single-center pilot study included patients admitted to the surgical Intensive Care Unit of University Hospital Ulm, Germany, all of whom were analgosedated and intubated. Major exclusion criteria were defined as the need for the administration of neuromuscular blocking agents or neurological diseases associated with peripheral nerve conduction restriction. Initial NFRT and BPS measurements were conducted within 12 h after admission. A structured pain assessment was performed at least twice daily until extubation throughout the observation period thereafter (Group A: BPS + NFRT, Group B: BPS).

Results

114 patients were included in the study. NFRT is associated negatively with BPS. NFRT was almost twice as high in patients with a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) score of -5 than in patients with a RASS score ≥ -4 (RASS -5 – NFRT: 59.40 vs. RASS -4 – NFRT: 29.00, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

NFRT measurement is associated negatively with the BPS in critically ill patients. NFRT measurement provides guidance for the evaluation of nociceptive processes in patients with RASS scores ≤ −4, in whom analgesia level is often difficult to assess. However, in order to identify excessive analgesia and derive therapeutic consequences, it is necessary to gradually decrease analgesics and sedatives until a stimulus threshold is reached at which the patient does not feel pain.

Trial Registration

Retrospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials Register, registration number DRKS00021149, date of registration: March 26, 2020. https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00021149.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-021-01490-8.

SUBMITTER: Schick B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8569046 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMortality and delirium in critically ill patients are affected by the provided analgesics and sedatives. The deeper the sedation and the higher the dose of analgesics applied, the more difficult it is to assess pain and the depth of sedation. Therefore, instrumental measurement methods, such as the measurement of the stimulus threshold of the nociceptive flexion reflex (NFRT), are becoming increasingly more important.ObjectiveThe aim of the present study is to investigate a potential association between the level of the nociceptive flexion reflex, mortality, and the occurrence of delirium.Material and methodsBy retrospectively analyzing a pilot data set of 57 ICU patients from the interdisciplinary surgical ICU of Ulm University Hospital surveyed between 11/2018 and 03/2020, a possible association between the NFRT, mortality, and the occurrence of delirium was calculated in an adjusted logistic regression model. Depending on the cut-off value, the stimulus threshold corridors result in the following comparison pairs: < 20 mA vs. 20-40 mA/20-50 mA/20-60 mA, > 40 mA vs. 20-40 mA, > 50 mA vs. 20-50 mA and > 60 mA vs. 20-60 mA. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) adjusted for age, sex, height, TISS-28, SAPS II, RASS, BPS, and applied analgesics. Pain assessment was performed, in addition to the Behavioral Pain scale, ≥ 3 times daily by measuring NFRT.ResultsA statistically nonsignificant tendency for an increase in mortality incidence occurred with an NFRT > 50 mA, versus a stimulus threshold corridor of 20-50 mA (OR 3.3, CI: 0.89-12.43, p = 0.07). A trend toward a reduction in delirium incidence occurred at an NFRT < 20 mA, versus a stimulus threshold corridor of 20-40 mA (OR 0.40, CI: 0.18-0.92, p = 0.03).ConclusionBased on the level of the NFRT, no recommendation can be made at this point to adjust the analgesic regimen of critically ill patients, who are unable to communicate. The observation of a tendency towards an increase in mortality at high stimulus thresholds or a reduction in the occurrence of delirium at low stimulus thresholds of the NFRT must be verified in standardized studies.

Project description:Circadian disruption is common in critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Understanding and treating circadian disruption in critical illness has significant potential to improve critical illness outcomes through improved cognitive, immune, cardiovascular, and metabolic function. Measurement of circadian alignment (i.e., circadian phase) can be resource-intensive as it requires frequent blood or urine sampling over 24 or more hours. Less cumbersome methods of assessing circadian alignment would advance investigations in this field. Thus, the objective of this study is to examine the feasibility of using continuous telemetry to assess diurnal variation in heart rate (HR) among medical ICU patients as a proxy for circadian alignment. In exploratory analyses, we tested for associations between misalignment of diurnal variation in HR and death during hospital admission. This was a prospective observational cohort study embedded within a prospective medical ICU biorepository. HR data were continuously collected (every 5 s) via telemetry systems for the duration of the medical ICU admission; the first 24 h of this data was analyzed. Patients were extensively characterized via medical record chart abstraction and patient interviews. Of the 56 patients with complete HR data, 48 (86%) had a detectable diurnal variation. Of these patients with diurnal variation, 39 (81%) were characterized as having the nadir of their HR outside of the normal range of 02:00-06:00 ("misalignment"). Interestingly, no deaths occurred in the patients with normally aligned diurnal variation; in contrast, there were seven deaths (out of 39 patients) in patients who had misaligned diurnal variation in HR. In an exploratory analysis, we found that the odds ratio of death for misaligned vs. aligned patients was increased at 4.38; however, this difference was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval 0.20-97.63). We conclude that diurnal variation in HR can be detected via continuous telemetric monitoring of critically ill patients. A majority of these patients with diurnal variation exhibited misalignment in their first 24 h of medical ICU admission. Exploratory analyses suggest possible associations between misalignment and death.

Project description:Background:Considering the adverse effects of sleep disturbance in critical care settings, accurate assessment could aid therapy; however, methodological inadequacies mean that no viable option is currently available. Research in healthy population has recently shown that a non-wearable sleep measurement device placed under the mattress of the bed could be beneficial in intensive care settings. Therefore, we aimed to validate this device compared with polysomnography (PSG) and to assess how it related to subjective sleep evaluations. Methods:This observational study measured the sleep of critically ill adult patients. The primary goal was to validate the Nemuri SCAN (NSCAN; Paramount Bed Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) against the reference standard PSG for 24?h. The secondary goal was to evaluate the association between the objective parameters obtained from NSCAN and PSG and the subjective report data obtained using the Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ) for the nighttime. Results:Eleven participants were evaluated. The median of the total sleep time scored by PSG was 456.0 (353.0-517.5) min during the nighttime and 305.0 (186.2-542.5) min during the daytime. PSG over 24?h revealed significant decreases in restorative sleep, with excessive daytime sleep, but with a normal quantity of nighttime sleep. The agreement, sensitivity, and specificity rates (with 95% confidence intervals) for the NSCAN compared with PSG were 68.4% (67.9-69.0%), 90.1% (89.7-90.6%), and 38.7% (37.9-39.7%), respectively. The median RCSQ value when subjectively evaluating nighttime sleep was 68.0 (26.3-83.5); this showed no correlation with the NSCAN sleep parameters, despite a positive correlation with the ratio of the stage N2 isolated or combined with restorative sleep in the PSG assessment. Conclusions:NSCAN had moderate agreement, high sensitivity, and poor specificity in intensive care settings, which is most likely due to its inability to identify immobile wakefulness often observed in critically ill patients or sleep depth. This remains a barrier to its use in the assessment of subjective sleep quality. Trial registration:This investigation was part of an interventional trial registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Individual Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000026350, http://www.umin.ac.jp/icdr/index-j.html) on March 1, 2017.

Project description:Background: Liver injury commonly occurs in patients with COVID-19. There is limited data describing the course of liver injury occurrence in patients with different disease severity, and the causes and risk factors are unknown. We aim to investigate the incidence, characteristics, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of liver injury in patients with COVID-19. Methods: This retrospective observational study was conducted in three hospitals (Zhejiang, China). From January 19, 2020 to February 20, 2020, patients confirmed with COVID-19 (≥18 years) and without liver injury were enrolled and divided into non-critically ill and critically ill groups. The incidence and characteristics of liver injury were compared between the two groups. Demographics, clinical characteristics, treatments, and treatment outcomes between patients with or without liver injury were compared within each group. The multivariable logistic regression model was used to explore the risk factors for liver injury. Results: The mean age of 131 enrolled patients was 51.2 years (standard deviation [SD]: 16.1 years), and 70 (53.4%) patients were male. A total of 76 patients developed liver injury (mild, 40.5%; moderate, 15.3%; severe, 2.3%) with a median occurrence time of 10.0 days. Critically ill patients had higher and earlier occurrence (81.5 vs. 51.9%, 12.0 vs. 5.0 days; p < 0.001), greater injury severity (p < 0.001), and slower recovery (50.0 vs. 61.1%) of liver function than non-critically ill patients. Multivariable regression showed that the number of concomitant medications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.21) and the combination treatment of lopinavir/ritonavir and arbidol (OR: 3.58, 95% CI: 1.44-9.52) were risk factors for liver injury in non-critically ill patients. The metabolism of arbidol can be significantly inhibited by lopinavir/ritonavir in vitro (p < 0.005), which may be the underlying cause of drug-related liver injury. Liver injury was related to increased length of hospital stay (mean difference [MD]: 3.2, 95% CI: 1.3-5.2) and viral shedding duration (MD: 3.0, 95% CI: 1.0-4.9). Conclusions: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 suffered earlier occurrence, greater injury severity, and slower recovery from liver injury than non-critically ill patients. Drug factors were related to liver injury in non-critically ill patients. Liver injury was related to prolonged hospital stay and viral shedding duration in patients with COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration: World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ChiCTR2000030593. Registered March 8, 2020.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the critically ill, energy delivery from enteral nutrition (EN) is often less than the estimated energy requirement. Parenteral nutrition (PN) as a supplement to EN may increase energy delivery. We aimed to determine if an individually titrated supplemental PN strategy commenced 48-72 hours following ICU admission and continued for up to 7 days would increase energy delivery to critically ill adults compared to usual care EN delivery. METHODS:This study was a prospective, parallel group, phase II pilot trial conducted in six intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand. Mechanically ventilated adults with at least one organ failure and EN delivery below 80% of estimated energy requirement in the previous 24 hours received either a supplemental PN strategy (intervention group) or usual care EN delivery. EN in the usual care group could be supplemented with PN if EN remained insufficient after usual methods to optimise delivery were attempted. RESULTS:There were 100 patients included in the study and 99 analysed. Overall, 71% of the study population were male, with a mean (SD) age of 59 (17) years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 18.2 (6.7) and body mass index of 29.6 (5.8) kg/m2. Significantly greater energy (mean (SD) 1712 (511) calories vs. 1130 (601) calories, p?<?0.0001) and proportion of estimated energy requirement (mean (SD) 83 (25) % vs. 53 (29) %, p?<?0.0001) from EN and/or PN was delivered to the intervention group compared to usual care. Delivery of protein and proportion of estimated protein requirements were also greater in the intervention group (mean (SD) 86 (25) g, 86 (23) %) compared to usual care (mean (SD) 53 (29) g, 51 (25) %, p?<?0.0001). Antibiotic use, ICU and hospital length of stay, mortality and functional outcomes were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:This individually titrated supplemental PN strategy applied over 7 days significantly increased energy delivery when compared to usual care delivery. Clinical and functional outcomes were similar between the two patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical Trial registry details: NCT01847534 (First registered 22 April 2013, last updated 31 July 2016).

Project description:BackgroundBesides airway suctioning, patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) benefit of different combinations of chest physiotherapy techniques, to improve mucus removal. To date, little is known about the clearance effects of oscillating devices on patients with acute respiratory failure undergoing iMV. This study aimed to assess (1) the effects of high-frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO) on lung aeration and ventilation distribution, as assessed by electrical impedance tomography (EIT), and (2) the effect of the association of HFCWO with recruitment manoeuvres (RM).MethodsSixty critically ill patients, 30 classified as normosecretive and 30 as hypersecretive, who received ≥ 48 h of iMV, underwent HFCWO; patients from both subgroups were randomized to receive RM or not, according to two separated randomization sequences. We therefore obtained four arms of 15 patients each. After baseline record (T0), HFCWO was applied for 10 min. At the end of the treatment (T1) or after 1 (T2) and 3 h (T3), EIT data were recorded. At the beginning of each step, closed tracheobronchial suctioning was performed. In the RM subgroup, tracheobronchial suctioning was followed by application of 30 cmH2O to the patient's airway for 30 s. At each step, we assessed the change in end-expiratory lung impedance (ΔEELI) and in tidal impedance variation (ΔTIV), and the center of gravity (COG) through EIT. We also analysed arterial blood gases (ABGs).ResultsΔTIV and COG did not differ between normosecretive and hypersecretive patients. Compared to T0, ΔEELI significantly increased in hypersecretive patients at T2 and T3, irrespective of the RM; on the contrary, no differences were observed in normosecretive patients. No differences of ABGs were recorded.ConclusionsIn hypersecretive patients, HFCWO significantly improved aeration of the dorsal lung region, without affecting ABGs. The application of RM did not provide any further improvements.Trial registrationProspectively registered at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ( www.anzctr.org.au ; number of registration: ACTRN12615001257550; date of registration: 17th November 2015).

Project description:AimsThe prolonged use of benzodiazepines and opioids can lead to an increase in the incidence of withdrawal syndrome. One of the known risk factors is the lack of a sedative-weaning protocol. This study established a sedative-weaning protocol and compared this protocol with the usual care of weaning in high-risk critically ill children.Materials and methodsThis was an open-label, randomized controlled trial in a tertiary-care hospital. We recruited children aged 1 month to 18 years who had received intravenous sedative or analgesic drugs for at least 5 days. The exclusion criteria were patients who had already experienced the withdrawal syndrome. We established a weaning protocol. Eligible patients were randomly divided into the protocolized (intervention) and usual care (control) groups. The primary objective was to determine the prevalence of the withdrawal syndrome compared between two groups.ResultsThirty eligible patients were enrolled (19 in the intervention and 11 in the control group). Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between both the groups. The prevalence of the withdrawal syndrome was 84% and 81% of patients in the intervention and control group, respectively. The duration of the initial weaning phase was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (p value = 0.026). The cumulative dose of morphine solution for rescue therapy in the intervention group was statistically lower than that in the control group (p value = 0.016).ConclusionThe implementation of the sedative-weaning protocol led to a significant reduction in the percentage of withdrawal days and length of intensive care unit stay without any adverse drug reactions. External validation would be needed to validate this protocol.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT03018977.How to cite this articleTiacharoen D, Lertbunrian R, Veawpanich J, Suppalarkbunlue N, Anantasit N. Protocolized Sedative Weaning vs Usual Care in Pediatric Critically Ill Patients: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(6):451-458.