Efficacy of fentanyl analgesia for trauma in critical care transport

Management of pain and sedation in the intensive care unit

Advances in our approach to treating pain and sedation when caring for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) have been propelled by decades of robust trial data, knowledge gained from patient experiences, and our evolving understanding of how pain and sedation strategies affect patient survival and long term outcomes. These data contribute to current practice guidelines prioritizing analgesia-first sedation strategies (analgosedation) that target light sedation when possible, use of short acting sedatives, and avoidance of benzodiazepines. Together, these strategies allow the patient to be more awake and able to participate in early mobilization and family interactions. The covid-19 pandemic introduced unique challenges in the ICU that affected delivery of best practices and patient outcomes. Compliance with best practices has not returned to pre-covid levels. After emerging from the pandemic and refocusing our attention on optimal pain and sedation management in the ICU, it is imperative to revisit the data that contributed to our current recommendations, review the importance of best practices on patient outcomes, and consider new strategies when advancing patient care.

Factors Contributing to Fentanyl Pharmacokinetic Variability Among Diagnostically Diverse Critically Ill Children

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to characterize the population pharmacokinetics of fentanyl and identify factors that contribute to exposure variability in critically ill pediatric patients.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center, retrospective cohort study using electronic record data and remnant blood samples in the setting of a mixed medical/surgical intensive care unit (ICU) at a quaternary children's hospital. Children with a predicted ICU length of stay of at least 3 days and presence of an indwelling central venous or arterial line were included. Serum fentanyl measurements were performed for 278 unique remnant samples from 66 patients. Both one- and two-compartment models were evaluated to describe fentanyl disposition. Covariates were introduced into the model in a forward/backward, stepwise approach and included age, sex, race, weight, cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A5 genotype, and the presence of CYP3A4 or CYP3A5 inducers or inhibitors. Simulations were performed using the successful model to depict the influence of inducers on fentanyl concentrations.

RESULTS

A two-compartment base model best described the data. There was good agreement between observed and predicted concentrations in the final model. The typical fentanyl clearance for 70 kg (reference weight) and 20.1 kg (median weight) patients were 34.6 and 13.6 L/h, respectively. The magnitude of the unexplained random inter-individual variability was high for both clearance (60.7%) and apparent volume of the central compartment (V₁) (107.2%). Coadministration of the known CYP3A4/5 inducers fosphenytoin and/or phenobarbital was associated with significantly increased fentanyl clearance. Simulations demonstrate that the effect of inducer administration was most pronounced following discontinuation of a fentanyl infusion.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study we show the feasibility and utility of using electronic record data and remnant blood samples to successfully construct population pharmacokinetic models for a heterogeneous cohort of critically ill children. A clinically relevant effect of concomitant CYP3A4/5 inducers was identified. Scaling this population pharmacokinetic approach is necessary to craft precision approaches to fentanyl administration for critically ill children.

Prehospital intravenous fentanyl administered by ambulance personnel: a cluster-randomised comparison of two treatment protocols

Background

Prehospital acute pain is a frequent symptom that is often inadequately managed. The concerns of opioid induced side effects are well-founded. To ensure patient safety, ambulance personnel are therefore provided with treatment protocols with dosing restrictions, however, with the concomitant risk of insufficient pain treatment of the patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of a liberal intravenous fentanyl treatment protocol on efficacy and safety measures.

Methods

A two-armed, cluster-randomised trial was conducted in the Central Denmark Region over a 1-year period. Ambulance stations (stratified according to size) were randomised to follow either a liberal treatment protocol (3 μg/kg) or a standard treatment protocol (2 μg/kg). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with sufficient pan relief (numeric rating scale (NRS, 0–10) < 3) at hospital arrival. Secondary outcomes included abnormal vital parameters as proxy measures of safety. A multi-level mixed effect logistic regression model was applied.

Results

In total, 5278 patients were included. Ambulance personnel following the liberal protocol administered higher doses of fentanyl [117.7 μg (95% CI 116.7–118.6)] than ambulance personnel following the standard protocol [111.5 μg (95% CI 110.7–112.4), P = 0.0001]. The number of patient with sufficient pain relief at hospital arrival was higher in the liberal treatment group than the standard treatment group [44.0% (95% CI 41.8–46.1) vs. 37.4% (95% CI 35.2–39.6), adjusted odds ratio 1.47 (95% CI 1.17–1.84)]. The relative decrease in NRS scores during transport was less evident [adjusted odds ratio 1.18 (95% CI 0.95–1.48)]. The occurrences of abnormal vital parameters were similar in both groups.

Conclusions

Liberalising an intravenous fentanyl treatment protocol applied by ambulance personnel slightly increased the number of patients with sufficient pain relief at hospital arrival without compromising patient safety. Future efforts of training ambulance personnel are needed to further improve protocol adherence and quality of treatment.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02914678). Date of registration: 26th September, 2016.

A description of pharmacological analgesia administration by public sector advanced life support paramedics in the City of Cape Town

INTRODUCTION

Emergency Medical Services are ideally placed to provide relief of acute pain and discomfort. The objectives of this study were to describe pre-hospital pain management practices by Emergency Medical Services in the Western Cape, South Africa.

METHODS

A retrospective, descriptive survey was undertaken of analgesic drug administration by advanced life support paramedics. Patient care records generated in the City of Cape Town during an 11-month period containing administrations of morphine, ketamine, nitrates and 50% nitrous oxide/oxygen were randomly sampled. Variables studied were drug dose, dose frequency, and route of administration, patient age, gender, disorder and call type as well as qualification and experience level of the provider.

RESULTS

A total of 530 patient care records were included (n = 530). Morphine was administered in 371 (70%, 95% CI 66-74) cases, nitrates in 197 (37%, 95% CI 33-41) and ketamine in 9 (1.7%, 95% CI 1-3) cases. A total of 5 mg or less of morphine was administered in 278 (75%, 95% CI 70-79) cases, with the median dose being 4 mg (IQR 3-6). Single doses were administered to 268 (72.2%, 95% CI 67-77) morphine administrations, five (56%, 95% CI 21-86) ketamine administrations and 161 (82%, 95% CI 76-87) of nitrate administrations. Chest pain was the reason for pain management in 226 (43%) cases. Advanced Life Support Providers had a median experience level of two years (IQR 2-4).

DISCUSSION

Pre-hospital acute pain management in the Western Cape does not appear to conform to best practice as Advanced Life Support providers in the Western Cape use low doses of morphine. Chest pain is an important reason for drug administration in acute pre-hospital pain. Multimodal analgesia is not a feature of care in this pre-hospital service. The development of a Clinical Practice Guideline for and training in pre-hospital pain should be viewed as imperative.

Pain and Agitation Management in Critically Ill Patients

Pain and agitation may be difficult to assess in a critically ill patient. Pain is best assessed by self-reporting pain scales; but in patients who are unable to communicate, behavioral pain scales seem to have benefit. Patients' sedation level should be assessed each shift and preferably by a validated ICU tool, such as the RASS or SAS scale. Pain is most appropriately treated with the use of opiates, and careful consideration should be given to the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of various analgesics to determine the optimal agent for each individual patient. Sedation levels should preferably remain light or with the use of a daily awakening trial. Preferred treatment of agitation is analgosedation with the addition of nonbenzodiazepine sedatives if necessary. There are risks associated with each agent used in the treatment of pain and agitation, and it is important to monitor patients for effectiveness, signs of toxicity, and adverse drug reactions.

A two-year retrospective review of the determinants of pre-hospital analgesia administration by alpine helicopter emergency medical physicians to patients with isolated limb injury

Up to 75% of pre-hospital trauma patients experience moderate to severe pain but this is often poorly recognised and treated with insufficient analgesia. Using multi-level logistic regression analysis, we aimed to identify the determinants of pre-hospital analgesia administration and choice of analgesic agent in a single helicopter-based emergency medical service, where available analgesic drugs were fentanyl and ketamine. Of the 1156 patients rescued for isolated limb injury, 657 (57%) received analgesia. Mean (SD) initial pain scores (as measured by a numeric rating scale) were 2.8 (1.8), 3.3 (1.6) and 7.4 (2.0) for patients who did not receive, declined, and received analgesia, respectively (p < 0.001). Fentanyl as a single agent, ketamine in combination with fentanyl and ketamine as a single agent were used in 533 (84%), 94 (14%) and 10 (2%) patients, respectively. A high initial on-scene pain score and a presumptive diagnosis of fracture were the main determinants of analgesia administration. Fentanyl was preferred for paediatric patients and ketamine was preferentially administered for severe pain by physicians who had more medical experience or had trained in anaesthesia.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous fentanyl administered by ambulance personnel

BACKGROUND

Management of pain in the pre-hospital setting is often inadequate. In 2011, ambulance personnel were authorized to administer intravenous fentanyl in the Central Denmark Region. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous fentanyl administered by ambulance personnel.

METHODS

Pre-hospital medical charts from 2348 adults treated with intravenous fentanyl by ambulance personnel during a 6-month period were reviewed. The primary outcome was the change in pain intensity on a numeric rating scale (NRS) from before fentanyl treatment to hospital arrival. Secondary outcomes included the number of patients with reduction in pain intensity during transport (NRS ≥ 2), the number of patients with NRS > 3 at hospital arrival, and potential fentanyl-related side effects.

RESULTS

Fentanyl reduced pain from before treatment (8, IQR 7-9) to hospital arrival (4, IQR 3-6) (NRS reduction: 3, IQR 2-5; P = 0.001), 79.3% of all patients had a reduction in > 2 on the NRS during transport, and 58.4% of patients experienced pain at hospital arrival (NRS > 3). Twenty-one patients (0.9%) had oxygen saturation < 90%. A decrease in Glasgow Coma Scale was seen in 31 patients (1.3%) and hypotension observed in 71 patients (3.0%).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous fentanyl caused clinically meaningful pain reduction in most patients and was safe in the hands of ambulance personnel. Many patients had moderate to severe pain at hospital arrival. As the protocol allowed higher doses of fentanyl, feedback on effect and safety should be part of continuous education of ambulance personnel.

Review on pharmacological pain management in trauma patients in (pre-hospital) emergency medicine in the Netherlands

Pain is one of the main complaints of trauma patients in (pre-hospital) emergency medicine. Significant deficiencies in pain management in emergency medicine have been identified. No evidence-based protocols or guidelines have been developed so far, addressing effectiveness and safety issues, taking the specific circumstances of pain management of trauma patients in the chain of emergency care into account. The aim of this systematic review was to identify effective and safe initial pharmacological pain interventions, available in the Netherlands, for trauma patients with acute pain in the chain of emergency care. Up to December 2011, a systematic search strategy was performed with MeSH terms and free text words, using the bibliographic databases CINAHL, PubMed and Embase. Methodological quality of the articles was assessed using standardized evaluation forms. Of a total of 2328 studies, 25 relevant studies were identified. Paracetamol (both orally and intravenously) and intravenous opioids (morphine and fentanyl) proved to be effective. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) showed mixed results and are not recommended for use in pre-hospital ambulance or (helicopter) emergency medical services [(H)EMS]. These results could be used for the development of recommendations on evidence-based pharmacological pain management and an algorithm to support the provision of adequate (pre-hospital) pain management. Future studies should address analgesic effectiveness and safety of various drugs in (pre-hospital) emergency care. Furthermore, potential innovative routes of administration (e.g., intranasal opioids in adults) need further exploration.

Management of Pain in the Emergency Department

Since pain is a primary impetus for patient presentation to the Emergency Department (ED), its treatment should be a priority for acute care providers. Historically, the ED has been marked by shortcomings in both the evaluation and amelioration of pain. Over the past decade, improvements in the science of pain assessment and management have combined to facilitate care improvements in the ED. The purpose of this review is to address selected topics within the realm of ED pain management. Commencing with general principles and definitions, the review continues with an assessment of areas of controversy and advancing knowledge in acute pain care. Some barriers to optimal pain care are discussed, and potential mechanisms to overcome these barriers are offered. While the review is not intended as a resource for specific pain conditions or drug information, selected agents and approaches are mentioned with respect to evolving evidence and areas for future research.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

To revise the "Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Sustained Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Critically Ill Adult" published in Critical Care Medicine in 2002.

METHODS

The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideline development, pain, agitation and sedation, delirium management, and associated outcomes in adult critically ill patients. The task force, divided into four subcommittees, collaborated over 6 yr in person, via teleconferences, and via electronic communication. Subcommittees were responsible for developing relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) to review, evaluate, and summarize the literature, and to develop clinical statements (descriptive) and recommendations (actionable). With the help of a professional librarian and Refworks database software, they developed a Web-based electronic database of over 19,000 references extracted from eight clinical search engines, related to pain and analgesia, agitation and sedation, delirium, and related clinical outcomes in adult ICU patients. The group also used psychometric analyses to evaluate and compare pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium assessment tools. All task force members were allowed to review the literature supporting each statement and recommendation and provided feedback to the subcommittees. Group consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations using the nominal group technique and the modified Delphi method, with anonymous voting by all task force members using E-Survey (http://www.esurvey.com). All voting was completed in December 2010. Relevant studies published after this date and prior to publication of these guidelines were referenced in the text. The quality of evidence for each statement and recommendation was ranked as high (A), moderate (B), or low/very low (C). The strength of recommendations was ranked as strong (1) or weak (2), and either in favor of (+) or against (-) an intervention. A strong recommendation (either for or against) indicated that the intervention's desirable effects either clearly outweighed its undesirable effects (risks, burdens, and costs) or it did not. For all strong recommendations, the phrase "We recommend …" is used throughout. A weak recommendation, either for or against an intervention, indicated that the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects was less clear. For all weak recommendations, the phrase "We suggest …" is used throughout. In the absence of sufficient evidence, or when group consensus could not be achieved, no recommendation (0) was made. Consensus based on expert opinion was not used as a substitute for a lack of evidence. A consistent method for addressing potential conflict of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.

Undertreatment of acute pain (oligoanalgesia) and medical practice variation in prehospital analgesia of adult trauma patients: a 10 yr retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Prehospital oligoanalgesia is prevalent among trauma victims, even when the emergency medical services team includes a physician. We investigated if not only patients' characteristics but physicians' practice variations contributed to prehospital oligoanalgesia.

METHODS

Patient records of conscious adult trauma victims transported by our air rescue helicopter service over 10 yr were reviewed retrospectively. Oligoanalgesia was defined as a numeric rating scale (NRS) >3 at hospital admission. Multilevel logistic regression analysis was used to predict oligoanalgesia, accounting first for patient case-mix, and then physician-level clustering. The intraclass correlation was expressed as the median odds ratio (MOR).

RESULTS

A total of 1202 patients and 77 physicians were included in the study. NRS at the scene was 6.9 (1.9). The prevalence of oligoanalgesia was 43%. Physicians had a median of 5.7 yr (inter-quartile range: 4.2-7.5) of post-graduate training and 27% were female. In our multilevel analysis, significant predictors of oligoanalgesia were: no analgesia [odds ratio (OR) 8.8], National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics V on site (OR 4.4), NRS on site (OR 1.5 per additional NRS unit >4), female physician (OR 2.0), and years of post-graduate experience [>4.0 to ≤5.0 (OR 1.3), >3.0 to ≤4.0 (OR 1.6), >2.0 to ≤3.0 (OR 2.6), and ≤2.0 yr (OR 16.7)]. The MOR was 2.6, and was statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians' practice variations contributed to oligoanalgesia, a factor often overlooked in analyses of prehospital pain management. Further exploration of the sources of these variations may provide innovative targets for quality improvement programmes to achieve consistent pain relief for trauma victims.

Single-drug sedation with fentanyl for prehospital postintubation sedation in trauma patients

BACKGROUND

A fentanyl-only (FO) regimen for prehospital postintubation sedation in trauma patients was compared with the standard protocol (SP) of fentanyl + benzodiazepine.

METHODS

Intubated patients transported to a Level I trauma center from December 1, 2005, to April 30, 2009, were retrospectively reviewed. Before 2007, only SP was used; afterward both regimens were used. Groups were compared for hemodynamic and neurologic parameters in the prehospital setting and trauma bay, fluid volumes, time until general or neurosurgical intervention (NSI), and other outcomes.

RESULTS

Groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, mechanism, alcohol level, intensive care unit length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Comorbidities were similar except hypertension (p = 0.019), and stroke (p = 0.029) were more frequent in FO patients. Prehospital heart rate and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) were similar. Trauma bay hemodynamic parameters and fluid resuscitation volumes were comparable, but pupil nonreactivity was more frequent in the FO group both overall (p = 0.032) and when comparing only patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI; p = 0.014). The incidence of TBI was comparable. Although the frequency of craniotomy (13% FO vs. 7% SP) and mortality (17% FO vs. 11% SP) were not statistically different overall, in patients with TBI, there was a higher incidence of NSI (28% vs. 14%, p = 0.015), craniotomy (14% vs. 3%, p = 0.02), and time to initial NSI (446 minutes vs. 193 minutes, p = 0.042) in the FO patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, an FO regimen was associated with similar hemodynamic but worse neurologic variables compared with the SP regimen. Prospective evaluation is warranted before adoption of this regimen, especially in TBI patients.

Factors associated with unoffered trauma analgesia in critical care transport

OBJECTIVE

Pain relief is a key out-of-hospital patient care outcome measure, yet many trauma patients do not receive prompt analgesia. Although specialty critical care transport (CCT) teams provide analgesia frequently, successfully, and safely, there is still a population of CCT patients to whom analgesia is not offered. We report the factors associated with non-administration of analgesia and with analgesic effect in trauma patients cared for by CCT teams.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of consecutive transport records for nonintubated trauma patients with self-reported pain during specialty CCT care. Patient demographics, CCT interventions, clinical traits, and pain self-reports are measured. Means comparisons are made with a univariate analysis of variance, and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported for between-group comparisons.

RESULTS

Of the 209 enrolled patients, 169 (80.9%; 95% CI, 75.6%-86.2%) were treated (147 received analgesia and 22 offered analgesia but refused). In patients with pain scale documentation (n=145), self-reported pain on a scale from 0 to 10 decreased from 6.8+/-2.8 to 3.3+/-2.4 (P<or=.001). Three factors were associated with absence of analgesic administration: initial pain level (OR for administration, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04-0.40), pain scale documentation (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.60), and transport program (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17-0.74). No clinical factor was associated with analgesia effectiveness in treated patients.

CONCLUSION

The identified factors may represent opportunities for CCT teams to optimize analgesic treatment.