Sensitivity of pain rating scales in an endoscopy trial

Effect of modified ShengYangYiwei decoction on painless gastroscopy and gastrointestinal and immune function in gastric cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Painless gastroenteroscopy is a widely developed diagnostic and treatment technology in clinical practice. It is of great significance in the clinical diagnosis, treatment, follow-up review and other aspects of gastric cancer patients. The application of anesthesia techniques during manipulation can be effective in reducing patient fear and discomfort. In clinical work, the adverse drug reactions of anesthesia regimens and the risk of serious adverse drug reactions are increased with the increase in propofol application dose application dose; the application of opioid drugs often causes gastrointestinal reactions, such as nausea, vomiting and delayed gastrointestinal function recovery, after examination. These adverse effects can seriously affect the quality of life of patients.

AIM

To observe the effect of modified ShengYangYiwei decoction on gastrointestinal function, related complications and immune function in patients with gastric cancer during and after painless gastroscopy.

METHODS

A total of 106 patients with gastric cancer, who were selected from January 2022 to September 2022 in Xiamen Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital for painless gastroscopy, were randomly divided into a treatment group (n = 56) and a control group (n = 50). Before the examination, all patients fasted for 8 h, provided their health education, and confirmed if there were contraindications to anesthesia and gastroscopy. During the examination, the patients were placed in the left decubitus position, the patients were given oxygen through a nasal catheter (6 L/min), the welling needle was opened for the venous channel, and a multifunction detector was connected for monitoring electrocardiogram, oxygen saturation, blood pressure, etc. Naporphl and propofol propofol protocols were used for routine anesthesia. Before anesthesia administration, the patients underwent several deep breathing exercises, received intravenous nalbuphine [0.nalbuphine (0.025 mg/kg)], followed by intravenous propofol [1.propofol (1.5 mg/kg)] until the palpebral reflex disappeared, and after no response, gastroscopy was performed. If palpebral reflex disappeared, and after no response, gastroscopy was performed. If any patient developed movement, frowning, or hemodynamic changes during the operation (heart rate changes during the operation (heart rate increased to > 20 beats/min, systolic blood pressure increased to > 20% of the base value), additional propofol [0.propofol (0.5 mg/kg)] was added until the patient was sedated again. The patients in the treatment group began to take the preventive intervention of Modified ShengYangYiwei decoction one week before the examination, while the patients in the control group received routine gastrointestinal endoscopy. The patients in the two groups were examined by conventional painless gastroscopy, and the characteristics of the painless gastroscopies of the patients in the two groups were recorded and compared. These characteristics included the total dosage of propofol during the examination, the incidence of complications during the operation, the time of patients' awakening, the time of independent activities, and the gastrointestinal function of the patients after examination, such as the incidence of reactions such as malignant vomiting, abdominal distension and abdominal pain, as well as the differences in the levels of various immunological indicators and inflammatory factors before anesthesia induction (T0), after conscious extubation (T1) and 24 h after surgery (T2).

RESULTS

There was no difference in the patients’ general information, American Society of Anesthesiologist classification or operation time between the two groups before treatment. In terms of painless gastroscopy, the total dosage of propofol in the treatment group was lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05), and the time of awakening and autonomous activity was significantly faster than that in the control group (P < 0.05). During the examination, the incidence of hypoxemia, hypotension and hiccups in the treatment group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.01). In terms of gastrointestinal function, the incidences of nausea, vomiting, abdominal distension and abdominal pain in the treatment group after examination were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < 0.01). In terms of immune function, in both groups, the number of CD4+ and CD8+ cells decreased significantly (P < 0.05), and the number of natural killer cells increased significantly (P < 0.05) at T1 and T2, compared with T0. The number of CD4+ and CD8+ cells in the treatment group at the T1 and T2 time points was higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05), while the number of natural killer cells was lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). In terms of inflammatory factors, compared with T0, the levels of interleukin (IL) -6 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha in patients in the two groups at T1 and T2 increased significantly and then decreased (P < 0.05). The level of IL-6 at T1 and T2 in the treatment group was lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The preoperative use of modified ShengYangYiwei decoction can optimize the anesthesia program during painless gastroscopy, improve the gastrointestinal function of patients after the operation, reduce the occurrence of examination-related complications.

Efficacy and safety of subanesthetic doses of esketamine combined with propofol in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Background

Painless gastrointestinal endoscopy is widely used for the diagnosis and treatment of digestive diseases. At present, propofol is commonly used to perform painless gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the high dose of propofol often leads to a higher incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory complications. Studies have shown that the application of propofol combined with ketamine in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy is beneficial to reduce the dosage of propofol and the incidence of related complications. Esketamine is dextrorotatory structure of ketamine with a twice as great anesthetic effect as normal ketamine but fewer side effects. We hypothesized that esketamine may reduce the consumption of propofol and to investigate the safety of coadministration during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Methods

A total of 260 patients undergoing painless gastrointestinal endoscopy (gastroscope and colonoscopy) were randomly divided into P group (propofol + saline), PK1 group (propofol + esketamine 0.05 mg/kg), PK2 group (propofol + esketamine 0.1 mg/kg), and PK3 group (propofol + esketamine 0.2 mg/kg). Anesthesia was achieved by 1.5 mg/kg propofol with different doses of esketamine. Propofol consumption per minute was recorded. Hemodynamic index, pulse oxygen saturation, operative time, induction time, awakening status, orientation recovery time, adverse events, and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were also recorded during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Results

Propofol consumption per minute was 11.78, 10.56, 10.14, and 9.57 (mg/min) in groups P, PK1, PK2, and PK3, respectively; compared with group P, groups PK2 and PK3 showed a decrease of 13.92% (P = 0.021) and 18.76% (P = 0.000), respectively. In all four groups, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), but not pulse oxygen saturation (SpO₂) significantly decreased (P = 0.000) immediately after administration of induction, but there were no significant differences between the groups. The induction time of groups P, PK1, PK2, and PK3 was 68.52 ± 18.394, 64.83 ± 13.543, 62.23 ± 15.197, and 61.35 ± 14.470 s, respectively (P = 0.041). Adverse events and psychotomimetic effects were observed but without significant differences between the groups.

Conclusions

The combination of 0.2 mg/kg esketamine and propofol was effective and safe in painless gastrointestinal endoscopy as evidenced by less propofol consumption per minute, shorter induction time, and lower incidence of cough and body movement relative to propofol alone. The lack of significant differences in hemodynamic results, anesthesia-related indices, adverse events, and MMSE results showed the safety to apply this combination for painless gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Trial registration This study was registered with China Clinical Trial Registration on 07/11/2020 (registration website: chictr.org.cn; registration numbers: ChiCTR https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/2000039750).

Pain Intensity Assessment Scales for Dermatologic Surgery Patients: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Pain assessment plays an important role in dermatologic surgery. The numeric rating scale (NRS), visual analog scale (VAS), verbal rating scale (VRS), and Faces Pain Scale (FPS) are commonly used scales for pain measurement. Conflicting evidence exists regarding the use of each. Prompt pain recognition and treatment during procedures result in higher patient satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE

Determine the most applicable scale for acute pain measurement in dermatologic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA-Supplemental Digital Content 4, http://links.lww.com/DSS/A976 (PROSPERO; CRD42018091058). PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched between April 24, 2018, and May 06, 2018. The search query consisted of pain, pain measurement (NRS, VAS, VRS, and FPS), and assessment/comparison. The inclusion criteria included English language literature with primary/secondary outcome objectives directly comparing ≥2 pain scales in acute pain (age: 13+). Study end points included interscale correlations, patient preferences, provider preferences, study author recommendations, and failure rates.

RESULTS

Eight hundred seven studies were retrieved: A total of 42 studies were included. The visual analog scale (n = 42) was most studied, followed by NRS (n = 29), VRS (n = 27), and FPS (n = 11). 93.1% studies showed a high statistical correlation between VAS and NRS. Patients preferred NRS (n = 8/11), followed by FPS (n = 3/11), VRS (n = 2/11), and VAS (n = 1/11). Study authors recommended NRS/VAS (n = 8/19), VRS (n = 6/19), and FPS (n = 1/19). Providers preferred NRS (n = 2/3) and VRS (n = 1/3). The visual analog scale had the highest failure rate (n = 11/12).

CONCLUSION

The numeric rating scale is most applicable for dermatologic surgery because of reported patient and provider preferences, lowest failure rates, and most frequent study author recommendations.

Comparison of left versus right lateral starting position on colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Modifying patient position during colonoscopy has been proposed as a simple and inexpensive technique to increase luminal distention and improve navigation through the large bowel. The left lateral (LL) decubitus starting position is commonly used during colonoscopy. However, reports indicate that other starting positions may offer additional benefit. We aimed to determine if the right lateral (RL) starting position compared to the standard LL starting position could improve outcomes in colonoscopy.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE through June 2020 to identify studies comparing RL and LL starting positions during colonoscopy. The primary outcomes included mean cecal insertion time and cecal intubation rate, and adverse events were assessed by pooling data using a random-effects model expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR), mean difference, and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

We identified 5 randomized controlled trials, including 809 participants, that compared LL vs. RL colonoscopy. The pooled OR for cecal intubation rate was 1.3 (95%CI 0.8-2.3; P=0.3). The mean difference in mean cecal insertion time was 0.08 (95%CI -0.09 to 0.26; P=0.4). Heterogeneity between studies was low (I 2=0%). No complications were reported in either arm of the study. Pain scores assessed using a visual analog scale were comparable among both arms of the study.

CONCLUSION

The RL starting position for colonoscopy was comparable to the LL and offered no additional benefit in terms of cecal intubation time, intubation rate, or patient discomfort.

A novel intubation discomfort score to predict painful unsedated colonoscopy

Pain during colonoscopy is a critical quality indicator and often a limiting factor for unsedated colonoscopy. This study aimed to identify factors associated with pain during colonoscopy and establish a model for predicting a painful colonoscopy.Patients aged 18 to 80 who underwent unsedated colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled in 2 tertiary endoscopic centers in China. The primary outcome was the rate of painful colonoscopy and then we identify high-risk factors associated with painful colonoscopy. A prediction model with an intubation discomfort score (IDS) was developed and validated.Totally 607 patients participated in this study, including 345 in the training cohort and 262 in the validation cohort. Body mass index (BMI) of <18.5 kg/m2 (OR 2.18, 95% CI: 1.09-4.37), constipation (OR 2.45, 95% CI: 1.25-4.80), and anticipating moderate or severe pain (OR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.12-3.79) were identified as independent predictive factors for painful colonoscopy and used to develop the IDS (all P < .05). Patients with IDS ≥1 had increased insertion time [9.32(6.2-13.7)] minutes vs 6.87(5.1-10.4) minutes, P = .038) and decreased cecal intubation rate (96.0% vs 99.6%, P = .044). Abdominal compression (48.4% vs 19.9%, P < .001) and position change (59.7% vs 32.1%, P < .001) were more frequently required in the group of patients with IDS ≥1. These results were externally validated in a validation cohort.The intubation discomfort score developed in this study was useful for predicting pain during colonoscopy, with IDS ≥1 indicating painful colonoscopy.

Effectiveness of digital feedback on patient experience and 30-day complications after screening colonoscopy: a randomized health services study

Background and study aims  European guidelines (ESGE) recommend measuring patient experience and 30-day complication rate after colonoscopy. We compared digital and paper-based feedback on patients' experience and 30-day complications after screening colonoscopy. Patients and methods  Screenees attending for primary screening colonoscopies in two centers from September 2015 to December 2016 were randomized (1:1) to an intervention arm (choice of feedback method) or control arm (routine paper-based feedback). Participants in the intervention arm could choose preferred feedback method (paper-based, automated telephone or online survey) and were contacted by automated telephone 30 days after colonoscopy to assess complications. Control group participants self-reported complications. Primary and secondary endpoints were response rates to feedback and complications questionnaire, respectively. Results  There were 1,281 and 1,260 participants in the intervention and control arms, respectively. There was no significant difference in response rate between study groups (64.8 % vs 61.5 %; P  = 0.08). Free choice of feedback improved response for participants identified as poor responders: younger than 60 years (60.8 % vs 54.7 %; P  = 0.031), male (64.0 % vs 58.6 %; P  = 0.045) and in small non-public center (56.2 % vs 42.5 %; P  = 0.043). In the intervention arm, 1,168 participants (91.2 %) answered the phone call concerning complications. A total of 79 participants (6.2 %) reported complications, of which two (0.2 %) were verified by telephone as clinically relevant. No complications were self-reported in the control group. Conclusion  The overall response rate was not significantly improved with digital feedback, yet the technology yielded significant improvement in participants defined as poor responders. Our study demonstrated feasibility and efficacy of digital patient feedback about complications after colonoscopy.

Response scale selection in adult pain measures: results from a literature review

Background

The purpose of this literature review was to examine the existing patient-reported outcome measurement literature to understand the empirical evidence supporting response scale selection in pain measurement for the adult population.

Methods

The search strategy involved a comprehensive, structured, literature review with multiple search objectives and search terms.

Results

The searched yielded 6918 abstracts which were reviewed against study criteria for eligibility across the adult pain objective. The review included 42 review articles, consensus guidelines, expert opinion pieces, and primary research articles providing insights into optimal response scale selection for pain assessment in the adult population. Based on the extensive and varied literature on pain assessments, the adult pain studies typically use simple response scales with single-item measures of pain—a numeric rating scale, visual analog scale, or verbal rating scale. Across 42 review articles, consensus guidelines, expert opinion pieces, and primary research articles, the NRS response scale was most often recommended in these guidance documents. When reviewing the empirical basis for these recommendations, we found that the NRS had slightly superior measurement properties (e.g., reliability, validity, responsiveness) across a wide variety of contexts of use as compared to other response scales.

Conclusions

Both empirical studies and review articles provide evidence that the 11-point NRS is likely the optimal response scale to evaluate pain among adult patients without cognitive impairment.

Literature review to assemble the evidence for response scales used in patient-reported outcome measures

Background

In the development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments, little documentation is provided on the justification of response scale selection. The selection of response scales is often based on the developers’ preferences or therapeutic area conventions. The purpose of this literature review was to assemble evidence on the selection of response scale types, in PRO instruments. The literature search was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases. Secondary search was conducted on supplementary sources including reference lists of key articles, websites for major PRO-related working groups and consortia, and conference abstracts. Evidence on the selection of verbal rating scale (VRS), numeric rating scale (NRS), and visual analogue scale (VAS) was collated based on pre-determined categories pertinent to the development of PRO instruments: reliability, validity, and responsiveness of PRO instruments, select therapeutic areas, and optimal number of response scale options.

Results

A total of 6713 abstracts were reviewed; 186 full-text references included. There was a lack of consensus in the literature on the justification for response scale type based on the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a PRO instrument. The type of response scale varied within the following therapeutic areas: asthma, cognition, depression, fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis, and oncology. The optimal number of response options depends on the construct, but quantitative evidence suggests that a 5-point or 6-point VRS was more informative and discriminative than fewer response options.

Conclusions

The VRS, NRS, and VAS are acceptable response scale types in the development of PRO instruments. The empirical evidence on selection of response scales was inconsistent and, therefore, more empirical evidence needs to be generated. In the development of PRO instruments, it is important to consider the measurement properties and therapeutic area and provide justification for the selection of response scale type.

Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction Induced by Different Surgical Methods and Its Risk Factors

The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of different surgical methods on postoperative cognitive function in patients undergoing abdominal surgery, determine the risk factors of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) by logistic regression, and investigate these risk factors through different surgical methods. A total of 70 patients undergoing selective abdominal surgery were selected into this study. The age of these patients ranged within 32 to 85 years. The cognitive function of these patients was assessed by the mini-mental state examination at one day before the operation, and at the first and seventh day after the operation. The temperature of the tympanic membrane, PETCO2 values, visual analogue scale scores, educational level, and operation time were recorded. Logistic regression analysis was used to analyze related factors of POCD. The incidence rate of perioperative hypothermia in groups O and L were 31.2 and 10.5 per cent, respectively; and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The difference in visual analogue scale scores at the first and seventh day after the operation between these two groups were statistically significant (P < 0.01). The incidence of POCD in group O was significantly higher than that in group L at the first and seventh day after the operation (P < 0.05). According to logistic regression results, it was found that age, perioperative hypothermia, and postoperative pain were risk factors of POCD. The difference in POCD for the patients undergoing abdominal surgery through different surgical methods was statistically significant, and this was closely correlated to perioperative hypothermia and postoperative pain.

Effect of topical nasal anesthetic on swallowing in healthy adults: A double-blind, high-resolution manometry study

OBJECTIVE

Topical nasal anesthetic (TNA) is used when evaluating pharyngeal swallowing with high-resolution manometry (HRM). It is unclear if desensitizing the nasal mucosa improves procedure tolerability or affects pharyngeal pressure. This study evaluated the effects of TNA on comfort and pharyngeal pressure using HRM.

METHODS

A double-blinded study was conducted with 20 healthy participants ( x¯ = 27 years). Participants performed five saliva and five 10-mL swallows during two exams with ManoScan HRM ESO catheter (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) randomized under placebo (nonanesthetic lubricant) and anesthetized (0.4 mL of 2% viscous lidocaine hydrochloride) conditions. Comfort was rated using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Pharyngeal HRM amplitude and timing were analyzed.

RESULTS

VAS ratings were similar under placebo (mean = 38.4, standard deviation [SD] = 19.92) and TNA conditions (mean = 33.78, SD = 18.9), with no significant differences between placebo and anesthetized conditions (t[19] = 1.23, P = 0.23) or tolerability at first and second procedure (t[19] = 1.38, P = 0.18). Lower maximum and mean pharyngeal pressure were found for the TNA condition when compared to placebo (dry: maximum [-15.45 mmHg, standard error (SE) = 5.06 mmHg, P = 0.021]; mean [-5.22 mmHg, SE = 1.58 mmHg, P = 0.005]), and (liquid: maximum [-14.79 mmHg, SE = 5.01 mmHg, P = 0.010]; mean [-2.79 mmHg, SE = 1.99 mmHg, P = 0.008]).

CONCLUSION

This double-blind, randomized study is the first to investigate effects of TNA on tolerability and pharyngeal pressure using HRM. Results indicate TNA offered no significant difference in procedure comfort while affecting the magnitude of pharyngeal swallowing.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4. Laryngoscope, 128:1335-1339, 2018.

Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90%); 2 cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90%); 3 adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25%); 4 appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80%); 5 complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.

Time trends in quality indicators of colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

There is considerable variation in the quality of colonoscopy performance. The Norwegian quality assurance programme Gastronet registers outpatient colonoscopies performed in Norwegian endoscopy centres. The aim of Gastronet is long-term improvement of endoscopist and centre performance by annual feedback of performance data.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to perform an analysis of trends of quality indicators for colonoscopy in Gastronet.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 73,522 outpatient colonoscopies from 73 endoscopists at 25 endoscopy centres from 2003 to 2012. We used multivariate logistic regression with adjustment for relevant variables to determine annual trends of three performance indicators: caecum intubation rate, pain during the procedure, and detection rate of polyps ≥5 mm.

RESULTS

The proportion of severely painful colonoscopies decreased from 14.8% to 9.2% (relative risk reduction of 38%; OR = 0.92 per year in Gastronet; 95% CI 0.86-1.00; p = 0.045). Caecal intubation (OR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.94-1.04; p = 0.6) and polyp detection (OR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.99-1.07; p = 0.15) remained unchanged during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain at colonoscopy showed a significant decrease during years of Gastronet participation while caecal intubation and polyp detection remained unchanged - independent of the use of sedation and/or analgesics and level of endoscopist experience. This may be due to the Gastronet audit, but effects of improved endoscopy technology cannot be excluded.

Patient-derived measures of GI endoscopy: a meta-narrative review of the literature

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

GI endoscopy (GIE) is widely performed, with 1 in 3 people requiring an endoscopic procedure at some point. Patient experience of medical procedures is important, but, to date, experience measures of GIE are derived from clinician opinion rather than from patients themselves. In this meta-narrative review, the literature on methods of assessing patient experience in GIE is reported.

METHODS

ScienceDirect, MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched to November 2013 using meta-narrative standards. Search terms included those related to endoscopic procedures, combined with those related to patient experience.

RESULTS

A total of 3688 abstracts were identified and reviewed for relevance. A total of 3549 were excluded, leaving 139 for full-text review. We subsequently included 48 articles. Three sub-groups of studies were identified--those developing original measures of endoscopy-specific patient experience (27 articles), those modifying existing measures (10 articles), and those testing existing measures for reliability or validity (11 articles). Most measures focused on pain, discomfort, anxiety, and embarrassment. Three studies explored wider aspects of experience, including preparation, unit organization, and endoscopist preference. Likert scales, visual analog scale scores, and questionnaires were used most commonly. The Global Rating Scale was validated for use in 2 studies, confirming that those domains cover all aspects of endoscopy experience. Other measures were modified to assess endoscopic experience, such as the modified Group Health Association of America survey (mGHAA-9) (modified by 5 studies).

CONCLUSIONS

No patient-derived and validated endoscopy-specific experience measures were found. Patient-derived and validated experience measures should be developed and used to model optimal healthcare delivery.

Nitrous oxide use during colonoscopy: a national survey of English screening colonoscopists

INTRODUCTION

Nitrous oxide can improve patient experience during colonoscopy, and its rapid elimination minimises after effects and inconvenience. Despite its advantages, nitrous oxide is used infrequently in the UK. We sought to understand the reasons for its low use.

METHODS

Colonoscopists within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) were invited to participate in a web-based survey assessing the availability, current practices and perceptions towards nitrous oxide. Respondents were able to select predefined answers or offer written responses. Free text responses were assessed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 68% of the English BCSP colonoscopists. Nitrous oxide was available to 73% of respondents but with considerable regional variation. Most colonoscopists rated the properties of nitrous oxide favourably and would use it if they had a colonoscopy themselves. Despite this, nearly half used it in less than 20% of examinations. 80% instruct patients to use nitrous oxide as required, and differences in how it was used in combination with intravenous sedation and analgesia were reported. Written responses suggest nitrous oxide is often used in the patients who are expected to have the least discomfort.

CONCLUSIONS

Most colonoscopists perceive that nitrous oxide is effective and reduces inconvenience and would use it themselves if they required a colonoscopy. Studies to improve patient selection and optimise the use of nitrous oxide would be of value.

Preference for different anchor descriptors on visual analogue scales among Japanese patients with chronic pain

Context

Although many previous studies have examined the preference of patients for different pain measurement scales, preference for anchor descriptors has not been thoroughly discussed.

Objectives

To examine (1) the preferred end-phrases used in the VAS as anchor labels for Japanese patients with chronic pain, and (2) whether the preference differs according to factors such as age, sex, educational level, duration of pain, and pain intensity.

Methods

We performed an observational study in patients suffering from non-cancer chronic pain for more than 3 months at a pain center in Japan. The patients were asked to rate their pain intensity using four types of VAS that used the following different anchor descriptors: “worst pain” (“Worst”), “worst pain bearable” (“Bearable”), “worst pain imaginable” (“Imaginable”), and “worst pain you have ever experienced” (“Experienced”). They were also asked to rank the four scales according to ease of responding, and asked which descriptor best reflected their perceived pain.

Results

In total, 183 patients participated in the study. They consisted of 119 (65.0%) women and 64 (35.0%) men aged 18–84 years with the mean age of 56.9 years. “Experienced” was most preferred (69.8%), followed by “Bearable” (66.3%), “Worst” (48.8%), and “Imaginable” (16.9%). Factors such as age, sex, educational background, duration of pain, and pain intensity did not significantly affect the results. In 83.1% of patients, the preferred descriptor corresponded to the descriptor that best reflected patients' perceived pain.

Conclusion

The frequently used expression “worst pain imaginable” is considered to be difficult to understand for most patients. Widely preferred descriptors, such as “worst pain you have ever experienced” and “worst pain bearable”, should be used when evaluating perceived pain. The preference of anchor descriptors was not significantly affected by the factors such as age, sex, educational level, duration of pain, and pain intensity.

Patient-reported outcome measures after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective, multicentre study

OBJECTIVE

While patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in ERCP are scarce, these reports are important for making improvements in quality of care. This study sought to document patient satisfaction and specifically pain related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures and to identify predictors for these experiences.

METHODS

From 2007 through 2009, prospective data from consecutive ERCP procedures at 11 hospitals during normal daily practice were recorded. Information regarding undesirable events that occurred during a 30-day follow-up period was also reported. The patient-reported pain, discomfort and general satisfaction with the ERCP were recorded.

RESULTS

Data from 2808 ERCP procedures were included in this study. Patient questionnaires were returned for 52.6% of the procedures. Moderate or severe pain was experienced in 15.5% and 14.0% of the procedures during the ERCP and in 10.8% and 7.7% of the procedures after the ERCP, respectively. In addition, female gender, endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), and longer procedure times served as independent predictors of increased pain during the ERCP. The performing hospitals and sedation regimens were independent predictors of the procedural pain experience. In 90.9% of the procedures, the patients were satisfied with the information overall, and in 98.3% of the procedures, the patients were satisfied with the treatment provided. Independent predictors of dissatisfaction with the treatment included the occurrence of specific complications after ERCP and pain during or after the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Female gender, the performance of EST and longer procedure times were independent predictors for increased procedure-related pain. The individual hospital and sedation regimen predicts the patient's pain experience.

[Pain in connection with colonoscopy in Norway]

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopies are common examinations at Norwegian hospitals. In contrast to many other countries, the majority of colonoscopies in Norway are conducted without routine sedation or analgesia. We wanted to investigate whether current Norwegian practice offers adequate pain relief.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

The material consists of prospectively recorded outpatient colonoscopies in the period January 2003-December 2011 performed at Norwegian hospitals in the quality assurance network for gastrointestinal endoscopy (Gastronet). We analysed demographic patient data and data from colonoscopies. Patients' experience of pain (none, slight, moderate or severe pain) in connection with the examination was established with the aid of a validated questionnaire.

RESULTS

Data from 61,749 colonoscopies (55% on women) performed at 29 different hospitals were analysed. Colonoscopies were perceived as moderately or very painful by 33% of the patients (41% of the women, 24% of the men, p < 0.001). There were substantial differences between hospitals as to the percentage of colonoscopies that were perceived as moderately or very painful (from 9% to 43%, p < 0.001) and the use of sedatives and analgesics for the colonoscopies (from 1% to 92% of the examinations, p < 0.001). Only 23% of those who found the colonoscopy painful received analgesics. Pethidine was used in 95% of the cases in which analgesics were used during the examination.

INTERPRETATION

Many patients find colonoscopies painful. Pain relief practice varies substantially between hospitals. Pethidine is an analgesic with a slow onset of action, and should perhaps be replaced with more rapidly acting opiates.

Nitrous oxide for analgesia in colonoscopy without sedation

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is associated with pain and discomfort, and intravenous analgesics and sedatives are widely used. There are several disadvantages regarding this practice, including risk of complications, resources demanded, and amnesia after sedation. In spite of promising results in previous studies, nitrous oxide is rarely used at endoscopy centers around the world.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficiency of nitrous oxide versus placebo as an analgesic during colonoscopy without sedation.

DESIGN

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

The endoscopy unit at Oslo University Hospital Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway, between June 2006 and May 2008.

PATIENTS

This study involved patients undergoing elective colonoscopy.

INTERVENTION

Patients inhaled nitrous oxide or placebo on demand.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The participants filled in a questionnaire regarding their experiences with the examination. Pain was graded from 1 (no pain) to 4 (severe pain).

RESULTS

We recruited 199 patients. We randomized 97 patients to the nitrous oxide group and 102 to the control group. The groups were comparable regarding demographic factors. Median patient-reported pain was 2 in both the nitrous oxide group and the control group (interquartile range 2-3 in both groups). Additional sedatives and analgesics were given equally often and in similar doses in both groups. No side effects related to administration of nitrous oxide were reported.

LIMITATIONS

The questionnaire was returned by 76% of the patients. The study gas was given on demand, not continuously.

CONCLUSION

Nitrous oxide given intermittently is not an effective substitution for intravenous on-demand sedation and analgesics in the setting of colonoscopy without sedation.

Magnetic endoscopic imaging versus standard colonoscopy in a routine colonoscopy setting: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Knowing the position of the endoscope within the abdomen is important for performing a high-quality, painless colonoscopy. The recently introduced magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI) system provides a continuous, real-time image of the endoscope during the entire procedure.

OBJECTIVE

To compare MEI versus standard colonoscopy with on-demand fluoroscopy on unsedated patients, as performed by experienced and inexperienced endoscopists.

DESIGN

Randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

Endoscopy outpatient clinic.

PATIENTS

This study involved 810 consecutive patients (391 randomized to standard group; 419 randomized to MEI) referred for colonoscopy.

INTERVENTION

MEI or standard approach (involving on-demand fluoroscopy) during colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Perceived patient pain and cecal intubation rate and time to cecum.

RESULTS

For inexperienced endoscopists, the cecal intubation rate was significantly higher in the MEI group (77.8%) compared with the standard group (56.0%), P = .02 but not for experienced endoscopists (94.0% for MEI and 96.0% for standard group, P = .87). Inexperienced endoscopists had less need for assistance from a senior colleague when they used MEI (18.5%) compared with the standard technique (40.0%), P = .02. Mean (± standard deviation) time to reach the cecum was 14.0 ± 12.2 minutes in the MEI group and 15.3 ± 14.2 minutes in the standard group, P = .67.

LIMITATIONS

Single center, unblinded study.

CONCLUSION

Inexperienced endoscopists improved their colonoscopy performance when they used MEI, compared with the standard technique, but experienced endoscopists did not. The MEI may be advantageous to use for colonoscopy centers educating endoscopists. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00519129.).

Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review

CONTEXT

The use of unidimensional pain scales such as the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), or Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) is recommended for assessment of pain intensity (PI). A literature review of studies specifically comparing the NRS, VRS, and/or VAS for unidimensional self-report of PI was performed as part of the work of the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative on pain assessment.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the use and performance of unidimensional pain scales, with specific emphasis on the NRSs.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed, including citations through April 2010. All abstracts were evaluated by two persons according to specified criteria.

RESULTS

Fifty-four of 239 papers were included. Postoperative PI was most frequently studied; six studies were in cancer. Eight versions of the NRS (NRS-6 to NRS-101) were used in 37 studies; a total of 41 NRSs were tested. Twenty-four different descriptors (15 for the NRSs) were used to anchor the extremes. When compared with the VAS and VRS, NRSs had better compliance in 15 of 19 studies reporting this, and were the recommended tool in 11 studies on the basis of higher compliance rates, better responsiveness and ease of use, and good applicability relative to VAS/VRS. Twenty-nine studies gave no preference. Many studies showed wide distributions of NRS scores within each category of the VRSs. Overall, NRS and VAS scores corresponded, with a few exceptions of systematically higher VAS scores.

CONCLUSION

NRSs are applicable for unidimensional assessment of PI in most settings. Whether the variability in anchors and response options directly influences the numerical scores needs to be empirically tested. This will aid in the work toward a consensus-based, standardized measure.

The Colorado Behavioral Numerical Pain Scale in assessing medication-free colonoscopy patients' pain

Pain scales have been tested in clinical settings, but rarely with colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the Colorado Behavioral Numerical Pain Scale (CBNPS) when assessing medication-free colonoscopy patients' pain intensity. During the first phase in 2005, the expert panelists (n = 17) described medication-free colonoscopy patients' behavior on a scale ranging from 0 to 5 scale. The descriptions were analyzed by quantitative and qualitative content analysis and compared with those of CBNPS. During the second phase in 2006, data from 138 medication- free colonoscopy patients and 11 nurses were collected using questionnaires (CBNPS, visual analogue scale [VAS], and verbal rating scale [VRS]) and analyzed statistically. The descriptions made by expert nurses were found similar to those of the CBNPS. Nurses' estimations with the CBNPS, VAS, and VRS of patients' pain were correlated with each other. According to our results, the CBNPS is an adequate instrument when assessing patients' pain intensity during medication-free colonoscopy. It provides an opportunity to evaluate the total pain intensity and the pain during the phases of the procedure. It is also a proper tool for improving nursing documentation. Results from this study highlight the need for further research to examine the pain scales.

Colonoscope with a sub-distal hyper-flaccid segment for improved insertion at colonoscopy: a randomized study

BACKGROUND

In sharp bends, particularly in the colonic flexures, the axial pushing force conveyed to the distal actively bending tip of the endoscope may cause impaction rather than progression. It is hypothesized that colonoscopes with a very flaccid segment immediately proximal to the distal bending tip might reduce this problem.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two prototype colonoscopes with a flaccid passively bending segment (either progressively graded or ungraded flaccidity) positioned immediately proximal to the distal actively bending tip was evaluated in a single-blinded randomized study. The primary end-point was patients' evaluation of pain.

RESULTS

Altogether, 400 patients were randomized 1:1 to examination with a prototype (60 patients to endoscope with graded flaccidity; 141 to the endoscope with ungraded flaccidity) or a standard colonoscope. The groups were similar regarding age, sex and previous abdominal surgery. Severe pain was reported by 7% of patients in the prototype and 18% in the standard group (p = 0.001). There was a trend toward shorter cecal intubation time in the prototype group (mean 14.1 min, 95% CI 12.8-15.3) compared to the standard group (mean 15.5 min, 95% CI 14.3-16.7) (p = 0.12) and similar intubation rates (89% and 85%, respectively). Results for first (ungraded flaccidity) and second (graded flaccidity) generation prototypes collectively were similar to the second generation separately.

CONCLUSIONS

The concept of an endoscope with a hyper-flaccid segment may facilitate negotiation of sharp bends and reduce pain without compromising cecal intubation rate or intubation time.

Sustaining the vitality of colonoscopy quality improvement programmes over time. Experience from the Norwegian Gastronet programme

OBJECTIVE

An important challenge of any quality assurance (QA) programme is to maintain interest among participants to ensure high data quality over time. The primary aim of this study was to identify factors associated with endoscopist compliance with the Norwegian QA programme for colonoscopies (Gastronet).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The Gastronet registration tools are an endoscopy report form to be filled in directly after the procedure by the endoscopist, and a satisfaction questionnaire to be filled in by the patient on the day after the examination. During the study period from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006, endoscopist compliance was measured by assessing patient report coverage, defined as the percentage of patient satisfaction questionnaires received by the Gastronet secretariat divided by the total number of colonoscopy reports registered by the individual endoscopists during the study period. Multivariate logistic regression models were applied to identify individual factors related to patient report coverage.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight endoscopists from 10 hospitals contributed a total of 16,149 colonoscopies. Overall patient report coverage decreased from 87% in 2004 to 80% in 2006. A low patient report coverage was associated with time since the registrations started [odds ratio (OR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-0.98; P < 0.001], use of sedation (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.61-0.76; P < 0.001), and incomplete colonoscopy (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.54-0.76; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Decreasing compliance with registration over time may compromise data quality and the validity of the results. Lower coverage of patient's reports (presumably for the most difficult examinations) may lead to erroneous conclusions regarding colonoscopy performance.

Medication-free colonoscopy--factors related to pain and its assessment

AIM

This paper is a report of a study conducted to determine the possibility of performing colonoscopy without medication, elucidate the factors related to a painful colonoscopy experience and compare colonoscopy patients' reported pain assessment to nurses' and endoscopists' observations.

BACKGROUND

Sedation and pain medication are routinely administered for colonoscopies in many countries. However, medication-free colonoscopies have attracted attention because the use of medication requires a time commitment from patients and increases complications. Earlier studies show that, for instance, gender, age and pelvic operations may increase the risk of painful colonoscopy and those healthcare professionals and patients appear to assess pain differently.

METHOD

A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted in a Finnish university hospital using questionnaires developed for this study and analysed statistically. The sample of 138 colonoscopy patients, 11 nurses and 11 endoscopists was recruited in 2006.

RESULTS

Over three-quarters of patients reported mild pain or no pain at all. Patients' nervousness is a risk factor for experiencing pain during colonoscopy. Both nurses and endoscopists slightly underestimated the intensity of pain experienced by patients.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to perform colonoscopy without medication with most patients and focus sedation and pain medication on at-risk patients, especially those who are nervous. Before the procedure, nurses must devote time to discovering which patients are nervous and at risk of having a painful colonoscopy to present them for sedation. To improve pain management for patients having colonoscopy, endoscopists and nurses should participate systematically in pain education and use pain scales.

Factors associated with abdominal discomfort during colonoscopy: a prospective analysis

OBJECTIVES

Colonoscopy can be uncomfortable. To increase safety, there is a trend, in the UK, towards reduced sedative use. We aimed to determine factors predictive of discomfort during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Prospectively recruited patients were asked to grade anticipated discomfort on a Numeric Rating Scale ranging from 0 to 10. Discomfort scores were recorded every 2 min during the procedure and during peaks of discomfort. An overall discomfort score was recorded.

RESULTS

One hundred and nine patients [44 male, 65 female; median 61.5 (21-80) years] were recruited. One hundred and three procedures were completed. Forty-five patients received midazolam [median 2 (1.5-5) mg]. Mean overall Numeric Rating Scale score was 4.7 (men 4.0; women 5.2; P<0.01) and median peak score 7. Discomfort was usually greatest at the beginning of the procedure, while in the sigmoid colon. Discomfort scores were higher in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (P = 0.03); diverticular disease (P<0.01); midazolam (P = 0.02), buscopan (P<0.001) or nitrous oxide (P<0.001) use; endoscope tracker use (P = 0.01); incomplete procedures (P<0.001) or a preceding gastroscopy (P = 0.02), but were not correlated with discomfort during venous cannulation or digital rectal examination. Multivariate analysis showed that female sex, high anxiety, anticipation of high discomfort, longer intubation time and higher endoscopist's grade of procedural difficulty were independent factors significantly related to overall discomfort scores. Recollected discomfort scores 2-3 months later were lower (P<0.01). Low-dose midazolam had no appreciable amnesic effect.

CONCLUSION

Factors indicative of difficult colonoscopy, and preceding gastroscopy, are associated with greater discomfort, as are the presence of female sex, irritable bowel, anxiety and anticipated discomfort. Low-dose midazolam neither relieves discomfort nor makes patients forget it. Selected patients may benefit from increased analgesia.

Effects of patients' anxiety, previous pain experience and non-drug interventions on the pain experience during colonoscopy

AIMS

This paper is a report of a study evaluating anxiety in patients prior to colonoscopy and identifying correlations between that anxiety, previous pain experience, non-drug interventions and pain intensity during colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND

Waiting for forthcoming procedures, such as colonoscopy, is stressful. However, a few studies have evaluated the influence of patients' anxiety, previous pain experience and non-drug interventions during colonoscopy.

DESIGN

A quantitative cross-sectional survey design was used. The data were collected from colonoscopy patients by using the Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory and a questionnaire developed for the study.

METHODS

We assigned one hundred and thirty patients scheduled for diagnostic colonoscopy in a Finnish university hospital during 2006. Patients completed the State Trait Anxiety Inventory before and a questionnaire developed for the study after colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Most of the patients suffered from pain but they considered it to be tolerable. Women were more anxious before colonoscopy and experienced more pain and discomfort than men. Previous pain experiences and high state anxiety level decreased patients' perceptions of colonoscopy. Non-drug interventions, such as peaceful talk, explanation of the reason for pain and guidance helped both anxious and non-anxious patients to ease the pain.

CONCLUSION

Awareness and understanding of previous pain experiences and anxiety levels in patients are essential and must be taken into account.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Colonoscopy patients' clinical education should be developed so as to be more individual. Furthermore, nurses should be better aware of the positive effects of non-drug interventions and should use them as an element of pain management for colonoscopy patients.

Clinical equivalence of IV paracetamol compared to IV dipyrone for postoperative analgesia after surgery for breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess clinical efficacy of IV paracetamol 1 g and IV dipyrone 1 g on a 24-h dosing schedule in this randomised, double-blinded study of 40 ASA I-III (American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of physical status) patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

General anaesthesia using remifentanil and propofol was performed for surgery. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups, receiving infusions of paracetamol 1 g/100 mL (Para Group) or of dipyrone 1 g/100 mL (Dipy Group) 30 min before arrival in the recovery area and every 6 h up to 24 h postoperatively. All patients had unrestricted access to opioid rescue medication via an IV patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary variables for clinical equivalence were the differences between the mean values for pain scores at rest and pain scores on coughing over 30 h postoperatively. The equivalence margin was determined as +/-10 mm on the visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Regarding pain scores at rest, the 90% CI of the mean differences between the treatment groups over 30 h postoperatively was found to be within the predefined equivalence margin [+7.5/-6.2], and the CI values for pain scores on coughing [+7.3/-9.0] were similar. The two groups did not differ in cumulative opioid rescue consumption (Dipy-Group 14.8 +/- 17.7 mg vs. Para Group 12.1 +/- 8.8 mg, p = 0.54) nor in piritramide loading dose (Dipy Group 0.95 +/- 2.8 mg vs. Para Group 1.3 +/- 2.8 mg, p = 0.545). Five patients in the Dipy Group experienced hypotension in contrast to none in the Para Group (p = 0.047). There were no significant between-treatment differences for other adverse events, patient satisfaction scores (p = 0.4) or quality of recovery scores (p = 0.3).

CONCLUSION

IV paracetamol 1 g is clinically equivalent to IV dipyrone 1 g for postoperative analgesia after surgery for breast cancer.