Exploration of the Nociception Level (NOL™) Index for Pain Assessment during Endotracheal Suctioning in Mechanically Ventilated Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: An Observational and Feasibility Study

Nociception level index variations in ICU: curarized vs non-curarized patients - a pilot study

PURPOSE

Pain is a major physiological stressor that can worsen critical medical conditions in many ways. Currently, there is no reliable monitoring tool which is available for pain monitoring in the deeply sedated ± curarized critically ill patients. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of the multiparameter nociception index (NOL®) in the critical care setting. We compared NOL with traditionally used neurovegetative signs and examined its correlation with sedation depth measured by bispectral index (BIS®) electroencephalographic (EEG) monitoring.

METHODS

This retrospective monocentric cohort study was conducted in a general intensive care unit, including patients who required moderate-to-deep levels of sedation with or without continuous neuromuscular blockade. The performance of NOL was evaluated both in the entire studied population, as well as in two subgroups: curarized and non-curarized patients.

RESULTS

NOL demonstrated greater accuracy than all other indicators in pain detection in the overall population. In the non-curare subgroup, all indices correctly recognized painful stimulation, while in the patients subjected to neuromuscular blocking agent's infusion, only NOL properly identified nociception. In the former group, EEG's relation to nociception was on the border of statistical significance, whereas in the latter BIS showed no correlation with NOL.

CONCLUSION

NOL emerges as a promising device for pain assessment in the critical care setting and exhibits its best performance precisely in the clinical context where reliable pain assessment methods are most lacking. Furthermore, our research confirms the distinction between sedation and analgesia, highlighting the necessity for distinct monitoring instruments to accurately assess them.

The Effect of Endotracheal Suctioning on Pain in Conscious Adult Patients in Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Pain assessment and management are an important issue to ensure the comfort of patients in the intensive care unit, and reducing pain is an important nursing intervention. Therefore, it is important to evaluate pain correctly. For correct pain management, it is necessary to correctly determine the presence and severity of pain. The study was conducted to determine whether endotracheal suctioning was painless and whether the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) was an accurate assessment tool to assess pain during endotracheal suctioning.

METHODS

This study is a prospective clinical study. Thirty-two patients were endotracheal suctioned using the same technique by the same person, and their before-procedure BPS and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were recorded. The study was conducted in the anesthesia and reanimation intensive care unit of a university hospital between December 12, 2020, and April 14, 2021.

RESULTS

The before-procedure BPS and VAS scores indicated no pain. There was an increase in the procedure BPS score, whereas the VAS score did not change.

CONCLUSIONS

Endotracheal suctioning did not cause pain in conscious patients when the procedure was performed with the correct catheter in accordance with the guideline. In addition, it can be said that BPS is not sufficient to evaluate pain, but the reason for its high level is because endotracheal suctioning is an uncomfortable procedure. Of course, more studies and further studies are needed for a clear result.It is important for health care professionals to relieve or reduce the pain of patients during the endotracheal aspiration procedure. In addition, the presence and severity of pain associated with the endotracheal aspiration procedure should be accurately measured. This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the IDNCT04634474.The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Evaluation of Pain During Endotracheal Aspiration in Intensive Care Patients Diagnosed with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Endotracheal aspiration, a procedure that is particularly painful for intensive care patients, has received little attention in terms of pain evaluation specifically among intubated patients with COVID-19 in intensive care.

AIM

The study aims to assess the level of pain experienced by intubated intensive care patients diagnosed with COVID-19 during an endotracheal aspiration procedure.

METHOD

The study population was composed of patients admitted to the COVID-19 intensive care unit of the specified hospital between February and March 2021. Of the 56 patients admitted during that period, 47 were contacted and participated in the study. These 47 intubated and sedated patients were evaluated for 94 different expressions of pain during endotracheal aspiration twice a day before and during the procedure. Data were collected using the patient descriptive information form, the Non-Verbal Pain Scale for adults and data observation record form.

RESULTS

In the study, pain behavior was observed in 54.2% (n = 51) of the 94 observations. The patients were found to experience mild pain with an average score of 3.6 ± 1.07 on the Non-Verbal Pain Scale. The mean pain score before the procedure was found to be significantly different from the mean pain score during the procedure (p < .05), with an increase in pain during the procedure. During the procedure, 33.3% (n = 17) of the patients had a 10% decreased SpO2, and 29.4% (n = 15) had an increase in systolic blood pressure (>20), pulse (>20), and respiration (>10). Additionally, 21.5% (n = 11) of the patients experienced severe incompatibility with the ventilator, and 15.68% had muscle tension.

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings showed that nonverbal pain scores of sedated and intubated intensive care patients diagnosed with COVID-19 increased during endotracheal aspiration, accompanied by physiologic pain indicators. Effective pain management should be a priority for nurses. It is important to remember that patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit may experience pain while sedated and intubated. A holistic approach should be adopted for the evaluation and relief of pain in these patients. Intensive care nurses should consider physiologic and nonverbal behavioral pain indicators when evaluating pain in patients diagnosed with COVID-19.

Continuous visualization and validation of pain in critically ill patients using artificial intelligence: a retrospective observational study

Machine learning tools have demonstrated viability in visualizing pain accurately using vital sign data; however, it remains uncertain whether incorporating individual patient baselines could enhance accuracy. This study aimed to investigate improving the accuracy by incorporating deviations from baseline patient vital signs and the concurrence of the predicted artificial intelligence values with the probability of critical care pain observation tool (CPOT) ≥ 3 after fentanyl administration. The study included adult patients in intensive care who underwent multiple pain-related assessments. We employed a random forest model, utilizing arterial pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, gender, age, and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score as explanatory variables. Pain was measured as the probability of CPOT scores of ≥ 3, and subsequently adjusted based on each patient's baseline. The study included 10,299 patients with 117,190 CPOT assessments. Of these, 3.3% had CPOT scores of ≥ 3. The random forest model demonstrated strong accuracy with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.903. Patients treated with fentanyl were grouped based on CPOT score improvement. Those with ≥ 1-h of improvement after fentanyl administration had a significantly lower pain index (P = 0.020). Therefore, incorporating deviations from baseline patient vital signs improved the accuracy of pain visualization using machine learning techniques.

The Validity of Vital Signs for Pain Assessment in critically Ill Adults: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVES

Pain assessment in the intensive care unit (ICU) is challenging because many patients are unable to self-report or exhibit pain-related behaviors. In such situations, vital signs (VS) through continuous monitoring are alternative cues for pain assessment. This review aimed to describe the reliability and validity of VS for ICU pain assessment.

DESIGN

Narrative review of the literature.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane.

REVIEW/ANALYSIS METHODS

A narrative review was conducted with a comprehensive search in four databases. Search terms included VS, pain assessment, and ICU.

RESULTS

Out of 1,359 results, 30 studies from 17 countries were included. Heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory rate were most used for ICU pain assessment. Assessments were performed at rest before procedures, during nociceptive and non-nociceptive procedures, and after procedures. Increases in respiratory rate were clinically significant by more than 25% during nociceptive procedures (e.g., endotracheal suctioning, turning) compared with rest/pre-procedures in five studies. Correlations of VS with self-reported pain (reference standard measure) and behavioral pain scores (alternative measure) were absent or weak.

CONCLUSIONS

VS are not valid indicators for ICU pain assessment. Increases of respiratory rate may be a cue for the detection of pain. However, fluctuations in respiratory rate can be influenced by opioids or controlled ventilation mode. Our results dissuade the use of VS for pain assessment because of the lack of association with ICU pain reference standards. Other physiologic measures of pain in critically ill adults should be explored.

Nociception level index variations in patients with complex regional pain syndrome: a pilot study

The nociception level index (NOL) is a multi-parameter index that incorporates changes in autonomic parameters to evaluate nociception, with more painful stimuli causing more pronounced index variations. How this nociception monitor relates to the pain experience is uncertain, and patients with chronic pain may respond differently to acute pain due to alterations in pain processing. The goal of this pilot study was to evaluate NOL index variations after a painful physiotherapy exercise in patients with upper limb complex regional pain syndrome. Baseline NOL indexes were recorded using a finger probe (PMD-200™ Monitor, Medasense, Israel) and patient reported baseline pain scores using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Patients then performed a painful physiotherapy exercise and NOL index and pain scores were again recorded. The same procedure and recordings were repeated after a stellate ganglion block. Data were analyzed using a paired Student T test and a P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Twenty patients (12/20 female, 10/20 right-sided) were included in this study. Patients reported moderate baseline pain (4.0 ± 2.7) despite having a low baseline NOL index (7.66 ± 5.76 out of 100). NRS and NOL index scores increased significantly during exercise, both before and after the block. The NOL index increased significantly when patients reported increased pain, indicating that it could eventually be useful in the objective assessment of acute pain in the chronic pain patients. However, NOL index was not able to reflect pain levels at rest, before the painful stimulation, in this chronic pain population. Further studies are needed to better assess NOL index utility at rest and to confirm these findings in this specific chronic pain population.

Exploration of a Multi-Parameter Technology for Pain Assessment in Postoperative Patients After Cardiac Surgery in the Intensive Care Unit: The Nociception Level Index (NOL)TM

Introduction

The aim of this study was to explore the use of a multi-parameter technology, the Nociception Level (NOL) index (Medasense Biometrics Ltd, Ramat Gan, Israel), for pain assessment in postoperative awake patients after cardiac surgery during non-nociceptive and nociceptive procedures in the intensive care unit (ICU).

Materials and Methods

A prospective cohort repeated-measures design was used. Patients were included if they were in the ICU after undergoing cardiac surgery and if they could self-report their pain. A non-invasive probe was placed on the patient’s finger for the continuous monitoring of the NOL index. Patients’ self-reports of pain and anxiety (0–10 Numeric Rating Scale or NRS), and behavioral scores with the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) were obtained before and during a non-nociceptive procedure (ie, non-invasive blood pressure [NIBP] using cuff inflation), and before, during and after a nociceptive procedure (ie, chest tube removal [CTR]) for a total of five time points. Non-parametric tests were used to compare scores at different time points, and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed.

Results

Fifty-four patients were included in the analysis. The NOL index, pain and anxiety scores were significantly higher during CTR compared to rest and NIBP (p < 0.001). During CTR, the NOL was associated with self-reported pain intensity and unpleasantness but not with anxiety and CPOT scores. The NOL showed a modest performance in detecting pain (NRS ≥1 and ≥5) in this sample with sensitivity and specificity ranging from 61% to 85%.

Conclusion

The NOL index was able to discriminate between a non-nociceptive and a nociceptive procedure and was associated with self-reported pain. Further validation testing of the NOL is necessary in a heterogeneous sample of ICU patients.

Description of the validity of the Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) and Nociception Level Index (NOL) for nociception assessment in anesthetized patients undergoing surgery: a systematized review

Maintaining optimum analgesia in anesthetized patients is challenging due to the inability to self-report pain or exhibit pain-related behaviours. The Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) (based on heart rate variability [HRV]) and the Nociception Level Index (NOL) (based on HRV, photoplethysmography, skin conductance, and temperature) both include HRV and provide continuous index monitoring for nociception assessment. The research question was: "What are the validation strategies of the NOL and ANI for nociception assessment in anesthetized patients?". The objectives were to describe and analyze the validation strategies and results. A systematized review was conducted using a comprehensive search with keywords under three concepts (nociception/pain, ANI/NOL, and validity) in four databases. A quality assessment using an adapted GRADE approach for measurement tools, and a risk of bias assessment using QUADAS-2 tool were performed by two reviewers. Out of 525 results, 15 validation studies were included. Strategies included hypothesis testing, discriminative, and criterion validation. Significant changes in ANI/NOL values were found in response to nociceptive stimuli at different opioid concentrations (hypothesis testing). Higher ANI/NOL values were observed during nociceptive stimuli (discriminative). AUCs ranging from 0.83 to 0.99 were obtained to detect nociceptive stimuli (criterion). Both technologies performed superiorly in detecting nociceptive stimuli compared to individual monitoring of HR and blood pressure. Although the aforementioned validation strategies are deemed appropriate, in the absence of a gold standard, criterion validation findings should be interpreted with caution. Moreover, reliability could be examined using test-retest with consistent ANI/NOL values during a stable time-interval.

Analgesia and sedation in patients with ARDS

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is one of the most demanding conditions in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Management of analgesia and sedation in ARDS is particularly challenging. An expert panel was convened to produce a "state-of-the-art" article to support clinicians in the optimal management of analgesia/sedation in mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS, including those with COVID-19. Current ICU analgesia/sedation guidelines promote analgesia first and minimization of sedation, wakefulness, delirium prevention and early rehabilitation to facilitate ventilator and ICU liberation. However, these strategies cannot always be applied to patients with ARDS who sometimes require deep sedation and/or paralysis. Patients with severe ARDS may be under-represented in analgesia/sedation studies and currently recommended strategies may not be feasible. With lightened sedation, distress-related symptoms (e.g., pain and discomfort, anxiety, dyspnea) and patient-ventilator asynchrony should be systematically assessed and managed through interprofessional collaboration, prioritizing analgesia and anxiolysis. Adaptation of ventilator settings (e.g., use of a pressure-set mode, spontaneous breathing, sensitive inspiratory trigger) should be systematically considered before additional medications are administered. Managing the mechanical ventilator is of paramount importance to avoid the unnecessary use of deep sedation and/or paralysis. Therefore, applying an "ABCDEF-R" bundle (R = Respiratory-drive-control) may be beneficial in ARDS patients. Further studies are needed, especially regarding the use and long-term effects of fast-offset drugs (e.g., remifentanil, volatile anesthetics) and the electrophysiological assessment of analgesia/sedation (e.g., electroencephalogram devices, heart-rate variability, and video pupillometry). This review is particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic given drug shortages and limited ICU-bed capacity.