Dataset Information

Comparison of Neonatal Pain, Agitation, and Sedation Scale with Premature Infant Pain Profile for the Assessment of Acute Prolonged Pain in Neonates on Assisted Ventilation: A Prospective Observational Study.

ABSTRACT: This study aimed to compare Neonatal Pain, Agitation, and Sedation Scale (N-PASS) with Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) for the assessment of acute prolonged pain in ventilated neonates.This study was conducted in two phases. In phase 1 of the study, we assessed whether neonates on assisted ventilation experienced acute prolonged pain. In phase 2, the aim was to compare N-PASS with PIPP for the assessment of acute prolonged pain in neonates on assisted ventilation..This is a prospective observational study.This study was conducted at a tertiary care neonatal intensive care unit for 6 months.Neonates on assisted ventilation for >48 h were selected for this study.Neonates with lethal congenital anomalies and severe encephalopathy were excluded from the study. N-PASS and PIPP tools were used to assess acute prolonged pain in ventilated neonates. Taking PIPP as gold standard and N-PASS as a new test, the correlation coefficient was calculated. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were also computed. The time taken to administer the tools was also computed.The average PIPP score for ventilated neonates was 8.33. The correlation coefficient of N-PASS when compared to PIPP was 0.62. The average time taken to apply the N-PASS scale was 4.42 min as compared to 8.20 min for PIPP scale. In term neonates, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of N-PASS were 75%, 100%, 100%, and 60%, respectively. The corresponding values in preterm neonates were lesser.The study proves that neonates on assisted ventilation experience acute prolonged pain. N-PASS is clinically reliable and valid to assess acute prolonged pain in ventilated term neonates. The N-PASS is quicker than PIPP in assessing acute prolonged pain in ventilated neonates.The modified N-PASS tool (including the gestational age) should be developed.

SUBMITTER: Desai SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5545954 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jul-Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although routine administration of pharmacologic sedation or analgesia during mechanical ventilation in preterm neonates is not recommended, its use in clinical practice remains common. Alpha-2 agonists, mainly clonidine and dexmedetomidine, are used as adjunctive (or alternative) sedative agents alongside opioids and benzodiazepines. Clonidine has not been systematically assessed for use in neonatal sedation during ventilation. OBJECTIVES:To assess whether clonidine administered to term and preterm newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation reduces morbidity and mortality rates. To compare the intervention versus placebo, no treatment, and dexmedetomidine; and to assess the safety of clonidine infusion for potential harms.To perform subgroup analyses according to gestational age; birth weight; administration method (infusion or bolus therapy); dose, duration, and route of clonidine administration; and pharmacologic sedation as a co-intervention. SEARCH METHODS:We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to January 10, 2017), Embase (1980 to January 10, 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to January 10, 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials. SELECTION CRITERIA:We searched for randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, and cluster trials comparing clonidine versus placebo, no treatment, or dexmedetomidine administered to term and preterm newborns receiving mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:For the included trial, two review authors independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, all-cause death during initial hospitalization, duration of respiratory support, sedation scale, duration of hospital stay) and assessed risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomization, blinding, completeness of follow-up). This review considered primary outcomes of all-cause neonatal death, all-cause death during initial hospitalization, and duration of mechanical ventilation in days. MAIN RESULTS:One trial, which included 112 infants, met the inclusion criteria for this review. Term newborn infants on mechanical ventilation with the need for continuous analgesia and sedation with fentanyl and midazolam were eligible for enrollment during the first 96 hours of ventilation. Study authors administered clonidine 1 ?g/kg/h or placebo on day 4 after intubation.We found no differences between the two groups in all-cause death during hospitalization (risk ratio [RR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12 to 3.98). The quality of the evidence supporting these findings is low owing to imprecision of the estimates (one study; few events). The median (interquartile range) duration of mechanical ventilation was 7.1 days (5.7 to 9.1 days) in the clonidine group and 5.8 days (4.9 to 7.9 days) in the placebo group, respectively (P = 0.070). Among secondary outcomes, we found no differences in terms of duration of stay in the intensive care unit. Sedation scale values (COMFORT) and analgesia scores (Hartwig) during the first 72 hours of infusion of study medication were lower in the clonidine group than in the placebo group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:At present, evidence is insufficient to show the efficacy and safety of clonidine for sedation and analgesia in term and preterm newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation.

Project description:BackgroundTo achieve gas exchange goals and mitigate lung injury, infants who fail with conventional ventilation (CV) are generally switched to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV). Although preferred in many neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), research on this type of rescue HFOV has not been reported recently.MethodsAn online registry database for a multicenter, prospective study was set to evaluate factors affecting the response of newborn infants to rescue HFOV treatment. The study population consisted of 372 infants with CV failure after at least 4 hours of treatment in 23 participating NICUs. Patients were grouped according to their final outcome as survived (Group S) or as died or received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (Group D/E). Patients' demographic characteristics and underlying diseases in addition to their ventilator settings, arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis results at 0, 1, 4, and 24 hours, type of device, ventilation duration, and complications were compared between groups.ResultsHFOV as rescue treatment was successful in 58.1% of patients. Demographic and treatment parameters were not different between groups, except that infants in Group D/E had lower birthweight (BW) (1655 ± 1091 vs. 1858 ± 1027 g, p = 0.006), a higher initial FiO2 setting (83% vs. 72%, p < 0.001), and a higher rate of nitric oxide exposure (21.8% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.004) in comparison to infants who survived (Group S). The initial cut-offs for a successful response on ABG were defined as pH >7.065 (OR: 19.74, 95% CI 4.83-80.6, p < 0.001), HCO3 >16.35 mmol/L (OR: 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.1, p = 0.006), and lactate level <3.75 mmol/L (OR: 1.09%95 CI 1.01-1.16, p = 0.006). Rescue HFOV duration was associated with retinopathy of prematurity (p = 0.005) and moderate or severe chronic lung disease (p < 0.001), but not with patent ductus arteriosus or intraventricular hemorrhage, in survivors (p > 0.05).ConclusionRescue HFOV as defined for this population was successful in more than half of the patients with CV failure. Although the response was not associated with gestational age, underlying disease, device used, or initial MV settings, it seemed to be more effective in patients with higher BW and those not requiring nitric oxide. Initial pH, HCO3, and lactate levels on ABG may be used as predictors of a response to rescue HFOV.

Project description:BackgroundPain, agitation-sedation and delirium management are crucial elements in the care of critically ill patients. In the present study, we aimed to present the current practice of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments in Chinese intensive care units (ICUs) and investigate the gap between physicians' perception and actual clinical performance.MethodsWe sent invitations to the 33 members of the Neuro-Critical Care Committee affiliated with the Chinese Association of Critical Care Physicians. Finally, 24 ICUs (14 general-, 5 neuroscience-, 3 surgical-, and 2 emergency-ICUs) from 20 hospitals participated in this one-day point prevalence study combined with an on-site questionnaire survey. We enrolled adult ICU admitted patients with a length of stay ?24?h, who were divided into the brain-injured group or non-brain-injured group. The hospital records and nursing records during the 24-h period prior to enrollment were reviewed. Actual evaluations of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium were documented. We invited physicians on-duty during the 24?h prior to the patients' enrollment to complete a survey questionnaire, which contained attitude for importance of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments.ResultsWe enrolled 387 patients including 261 (67.4%) brain-injured and 126 (32.6%) non-brain-injured patients. There were 19.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.9-23.9%) and 25.6% (95% CI: 21.2-29.9%) patients receiving the pain and agitation-sedation scale assessment, respectively. The rates of these two types of assessments were significantly lower in brain-injured patients than non-brain-injured patients (p?=?0.003 and?<?0.001). Delirium assessment was only performed in three patients (0.8, 95% CI: 0.1-1.7%). In questionnaires collected from 91 physicians, 70.3% (95% CI: 60.8-79.9%) and 82.4% (95% CI: 74.4-90.4%) reported routine use of pain and agitation-sedation scale assessments, respectively. More than half of the physicians (52.7, 95% CI: 42.3-63.2%) reported daily screening for delirium using an assessment scale.ConclusionsThe actual prevalence of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessment, especially delirium screening, was suboptimal in Chinese ICUs. There is a gap between physicians' perceptions and actual clinical practice in pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments. Our results will prompt further quality improvement projects to optimize the practice of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium management in China.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03975751 . Retrospectively registered on 2 June 2019.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Neonatal Pain, Agitation, and Sedation Scale with Premature Infant Pain Profile for the Assessment of Acute Prolonged Pain in Neonates on Assisted Ventilation: A Prospective Observational Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets