Effects of age on responsiveness to adjunct hypnotic analgesia during invasive medical procedures

Investigation of the effect of virtual reality distraction in patients undergoing mandibular periodontal surgery: A randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

This clinical study aimed to evaluate the effect of virtual reality (VR) technology on anxiety and pain levels in patients undergoing gingivectomy and gingivoplasty procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The patients were randomized into test (surgery with VR glasses) and control (surgery without VR glasses) groups. Before the surgery, the anxiety level was measured using the modified dental anxiety scale (MDAS), and anticipated pain (AP) was measured by a visual analog scale (VAS). Immediately after the surgery, the pain and discomfort associated with the surgery (VASP), procedure time (T), and time perception (TP) were evaluated. The patients in the test group were requested to assess the immersion (VASI), satisfaction (VASS), perception of reduced anxiety (VASA), and perceived control (VASC). One week after surgery, MDAS was applied to all patients.

RESULTS

This trial was conducted with 41 female and 17 male subjects with a mean age of 29.69 ± 12.32. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of age, sex, preoperative MDAS, or AP. After surgery, MDAS, VASP, T, and TP failed to differ significantly between the groups. The subject age was positively correlated with VASI, VASS, VASA, and VASC (r = 0.60, p = 0.00; r = 0.44, p = 0.02; r = 0.46, p = 0.02; r = 0.50, p = 0.01, respectively) and negatively correlated with VASP (r = 0.47, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

VR application did not affect anxiety and pain levels in patients undergoing periodontal surgery. More studies are needed to evaluate VR distraction in periodontal surgeries with diverse age samples and video options.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

VR does not affect anxiety and pain levels during gingivectomy and gingivoplasty surgeries in the young adult population. It should be evaluated in older age groups. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06092177.

Virtual reality hypnosis diminishes experimental cold pain and alters autonomic responses

Immersive virtual reality (VR) is a promising tool to reduce pain in clinical setting. Digital scripts displayed by VR disposals can be enriched by several analgesic interventions, which are widely used to reduce pain. One of these techniques is hypnosis induced through the VR script (VRH) which is facilitated by immersive environment and particularly efficient even for low hypnotizable patients. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of a VRH script on experimentally induced cold pain perception (intensity and unpleasantness) and physiological expression. 41 healthy volunteers had been recruited in this within-subjects study. They received 9 stimulations of 20 s (3 non-nociceptive cold; 3 low nociceptive cold and 3 highly nociceptive cold) during a VRH session of 20 min (VRH condition) or without VRH (noVRH condition). Physiological monitoring during the cold pain stimulation protocol consisted of recording heart rate, heart rate variability and respiratory frequency. Maximum cold pain intensity perception, measured through the visual analog scale (VAS) on 10, was of 3.66 ± 1.84 (VAS score/10) in noVRH condition and 2.46 ± 1.54 in VRH (Wilcoxon, p < 0.0001). Considering pain unpleasantness perception, 3.68 ± 2.06 in noVRH and 2.21 ± 1.63 in VRH (Wilcoxon, p < 0.0001). Hypnotizability negatively correlated with the decrease in VAS intensity from noVRH to VRH (Spearman r = -0.45; p = 0.0038). In our sample, we found that 31/41 volunteers (75.6%) displayed a reduction of more than 10% of their VAS pain intensity and unpleasantness scores. Trait anxiety was the best predictor of the VRH responders, as well as heart rate variability. In addition, respiratory rate was diminished under VRH in every subgroup. VRH is an effective tool to reduced pain intensity and unpleasantness in a vast majority of healthy subjects. We further indicate in this study that heart rate variability parameter RMSSD (root mean square of successive differences) is a good predictor of this effect, as well as anxiety as a personality trait (but not state anxiety). Further studies are expected to determine more precisely to whom it will be the most useful to offer tailored, non-pharmacological pain management solutions to patients.

Is Positive Communication Sufficient to Modulate Procedural Pain and Anxiety in the Emergency Department? A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

Research suggests that therapeutic communication could enhance patient comfort during medical procedures. Few studies have been conducted in clinical settings, with adequate blinding. Our hypothesis was that a positive message could lead to analgesia and anxiolysis, and that this effect would be enhanced by an empathetic interaction with the nurse performing the procedure, compared with an audio-taped message. This study aimed to modulate the contents and delivery vector of a message regarding peripheral intravenous catheter (PIC) placement in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This study was a 2 + 2 randomized controlled trial registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03502655). A positive versus standard message was delivered through audio tape (double-blind) in the first phase ( N = 131) and through the nurse placing the catheter (single-blind) in the second phase ( N = 120).

RESULTS

By design, low practitioner empathic behavior was observed in the first phase (median, 1 of 5 points). In the second phase, higher empathic behavior was observed in the positive than in the standard message (median, 2 versus 3, p < .001). Contrary to our hypothesis, the intervention did not affect pain or anxiety reports due to PIC placement in either phase (all p values > .2).

CONCLUSIONS

The positive communication intervention did not impact pain or anxiety reports after PIC. There might have been a floor effect, with low PIC pain ratings in a context of moderate pain due to the presenting condition. Hence, such a therapeutic communication intervention might not be sufficient to modulate a mild procedural pain in the ED.

Hypnosis for pain and anxiety management in cognitively impaired older adults undergoing scheduled lumbar punctures: a randomized controlled pilot study

BACKGROUND

Core cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid and tau biomarker assessment has been recommended to refine the diagnostic accuracy of Alzheimer's disease. Lumbar punctures (LP) are invasive procedures that might induce anxiety and pain. The use of non-pharmacological techniques must be considered to reduce the patient's discomfort, in this setting. The objective of this study was to examine the efficacy of hypnosis on anxiety and pain associated with LP.

METHODS

A monocentric interventional randomized-controlled pilot study is conducted in a university geriatric day hospital. Cognitively impaired patients aged over 70 were referred for scheduled LP for the diagnostic purpose (CSF biomarkers). The participants were randomly assigned either to a hypnosis intervention group or usual care. Pain and anxiety were both self-assessed by the patient and hetero-evaluated by the operator.

RESULTS

We included 50 cognitively impaired elderly outpatients (women 54%, mean age 77.2 ± 5.0, mean Mini-Mental State Examination score 23.2 ± 3.5). Hypnosis was significantly associated with reduced self-assessed (p < 0.05) and hetero-assessed anxiety (p < 0.01). Hetero-evaluated pain was significantly lower in the hypnosis group (p < 0.05). The overall perception of hypnosis was safe, well-accepted, and feasible in all the participants of the intervention group with 68% perceiving the procedure as better or much better than expected.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study suggested that hypnosis was feasible and may be used to reduce the symptoms of discomfort due to invasive procedures in older cognitively impaired patients. Our results also confirmed the overall good acceptance of LP in this population, despite the usual negative perception.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04368572. Registered on April 30, 2020.

The Effect of Pre-operative Psychological Interventions on Psychological, Physiological, and Immunological Indices in Oncology Patients: A Scoping Review

Introduction

The stressful pre-operative period exerts a profound impact on psychological, physiological and immunological outcomes. Oncological surgeries, in particular, elicit significantly higher stress responses than most other surgeries. Managing these responses through psychological interventions may improve long-term outcomes. The purpose of the current research was to review studies that have explored pre-operative psychological interventions in cancer patients in order to map the types of current interventions and provide an initial assessment of whether these interventions improved psychological, physiological, and/or immunological indices as well as long-term cancer outcomes.

Methods

A systematic literature search for studies that included pre-operative psychological interventions in oncology patients was conducted, using the databases PubMed and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria included studies pertaining to oncological surgery in adults, study designs that included a clearly defined pre-operative psychological intervention and control group.

Results

We found 44 studies, each using one of the following interventions: psychoeducation, cognitive interventions, relaxation techniques, integrated approaches. All the studies reported improved immediate post-operative psychological, physiological, and/or immunological outcomes. Only a few studies addressed long-term cancer outcomes, and only one reported improved survival.

Conclusions

Research on pre-operative interventions with cancer patients is missing systematic methods. Studies provide varying results, which makes it difficult to compare them and reach reliable conclusions. There is considerable heterogeneity in the literature regarding the specific intervention used, the timing of intervention, the characteristics of the patients studied and the outcome measures. In order to improve research in this field, including the measurement of long-term outcomes, we suggest some steps that should be taken in further research.

Effect of hypnosis before general anesthesia on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing minor surgery for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Preoperative anxiety is a common phenomenon in breast cancer, causing pain and tension, which is not conducive to the effective surgical treatment and postoperative recovery. It is believed that hypnosis can change the patient's perception of pain, thereby improving the patient's ability to control pain. However, the results of studies for this topic were controversy. In order to explore the effect of hypnosis in breast cancer surgery we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and conducted a meta analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Wiley online library, Elsevier, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched by computer with the keywords "hypnosis/hypnotherapy" and "breast cancer" and "oncologic surgery/surgery/biopsy". After screening, the meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software, and the evidence was rated using GRADE profiler 3.6 software.

RESULTS

A total of 1,242 patients were included in 8 studies, including 630 patients who received preoperative hypnosis and 612 patients who did not receive hypnosis. Meta-analysis showed that hypnosis before general anesthesia reduced the degree of preoperative anxiety (MD =-2.79, 95% CI: -3.93, -1.65, P<0.00001) and postoperative pain (MD =-1.25, 95% CI: -1.64, -0.86, P<0.00001) in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery, but had no effect on the operation time (MD =-6.30, 95% CI: -15.38, 2.78, P=0.17) and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (OR =0.68, 95% CI: 0.22, 2.07, P=0.49).

DISCUSSION

The application of hypnosis before general anesthesia for breast cancer surgery can reduce the degree of anxiety of patients, also reducing postoperative pain.

Audio-guided self-hypnosis for reduction of claustrophobia during MR imaging: results of an observational 2-group study

Objectives

To evaluate the influence of audio-guided self-hypnosis on claustrophobia in a high-risk cohort undergoing magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.

Methods

In this prospective observational 2-group study, 55 patients (69% female, mean age 53.6 ± 13.9) used self-hypnosis directly before imaging. Claustrophobia included premature termination, sedation, and coping actions. The claustrophobia questionnaire (CLQ) was completed before self-hypnosis and after MR imaging. Results were compared to a control cohort of 89 patients examined on the same open MR scanner using logistic regression for multivariate analysis. Furthermore, patients were asked about their preferences for future imaging.

Results

There was significantly fewer claustrophobia in the self-hypnosis group (16%; 9/55), compared with the control group (43%; 38/89; odds ratio .14; p = .001). Self-hypnosis patients also needed less sedation (2% vs 16%; 1/55 vs 14/89; odds ratio .1; p = .008) and non-sedation coping actions (13% vs 28%; 7/55 vs 25/89; odds ratio .3; p = .02). Self-hypnosis did not influence the CLQ results measured before and after MR imaging (p = .79). Self-hypnosis reduced the frequency of claustrophobia in the subgroup of patients above an established CLQ cut-off of .33 from 47% (37/78) to 18% (9/49; p = .002). In the subgroup below the CLQ cut-off of 0.33, there were no significant differences (0% vs 9%, 0/6 vs 1/11; p = 1.0). Most patients (67%; 35/52) preferred self-hypnosis for future MR examinations.

Conclusions

Self-hypnosis reduced claustrophobia in high-risk patients undergoing imaging in an open MR scanner and might reduce the need for sedation and non-sedation coping actions.

Key Points

• Forty percent of the patients at high risk for claustrophobia may also experience a claustrophobic event in an open MR scanner.

• Self-hypnosis while listening to an audio in the waiting room before the examination may reduce claustrophobic events in over 50% of patients with high risk for claustrophobia.

• Self-hypnosis may also reduce the need for sedation and other time-consuming non-sedation coping actions and is preferred by high-risk patients for future examinations.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-021-07887-w.

An hypnotic suggestion: review of hypnosis for clinical emergency care

BACKGROUND

Hypnosis has been used in medicine for nearly 250 years. Yet, emergency clinicians rarely use it in emergency departments or prehospital settings.

OBJECTIVE

This review describes hypnosis, its historical use in medicine, several neurophysiologic studies of the procedure, its uses and potential uses in emergency care, and a simple technique for inducing hypnosis. It also discusses reasons why the technique has not been widely adopted, and suggests methods of increasing its use in emergency care, including some potential research areas.

DISCUSSION

A limited number of clinical studies and case reports suggest that hypnosis may be effective in a wide variety of conditions applicable to emergency medical care. These include providing analgesia for existing pain (e.g., fractures, burns, and lacerations), providing analgesia and sedation for painful procedures (e.g., needle sticks, laceration repair, and fracture and joint reductions), reducing acute anxiety, increasing children's cooperation for procedures, facilitating the diagnosis and treatment of acute psychiatric conditions, and providing analgesia and anxiolysis for obstetric/gynecologic problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Although it is safe, fast, and cost-effective, emergency clinicians rarely use hypnosis. This is due, in part, to the myths surrounding hypnosis and its association with alternative-complementary medicine. Genuine barriers to its increased clinical use include a lack of assured effectiveness and a lack of training and training requirements. Based on the results of further research, hypnosis could become a powerful and safe nonpharmacologic addition to the emergency clinician's armamentarium, with the potential to enhance patient care in emergency medicine, prehospital care, and remote medical settings.

The impact of hypnotic suggestibility in clinical care settings

Hypnotic suggestibility has been described as a powerful predictor of outcomes associated with hypnotic interventions. However, there have been no systematic approaches to quantifying this effect across the literature. This meta-analysis evaluates the magnitude of the effect of hypnotic suggestibility on hypnotic outcomes in clinical settings. PsycINFO and PubMed were searched from their inception through July 2009. Thirty-four effects from 10 studies and 283 participants are reported. Results revealed a statistically significant overall effect size in the small to medium range (r = .24; 95% Confidence Interval = -0.28 to 0.75), indicating that greater hypnotic suggestibility led to greater effects of hypnosis interventions. Hypnotic suggestibility accounted for 6% of the variance in outcomes. Smaller sample size studies, use of the SHCS, and pediatric samples tended to result in larger effect sizes. The authors question the usefulness of assessing hypnotic suggestibility in clinical contexts.

THE EFFICACY OF HYPNOTIC ANALGESIA IN ADULTS: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This article both summarizes the previous reviews of randomized, controlled trials of hypnotic analgesia for the treatment of chronic and acute pain in adults, and reviews similar trials which have recently been published in the scientific literature. The results indicate that for both chronic and acute pain conditions: (1) hypnotic analgesia consistently results in greater decreases in a variety of pain outcomes compared to no treatment/standard care; (2) hypnosis frequently out-performs non-hypnotic interventions (e.g. education, supportive therapy) in terms of reductions in pain-related outcomes; and (3) hypnosis performs similarly to treatments that contain hypnotic elements (such as progressive muscle relaxation), but is not surpassed in efficacy by these alternative treatments. Factors that may influence the efficacy of hypnotic analgesia interventions are discussed, including, but not limited to, the patient's level of suggestibility, treatment outcome expectancy, and provider expertise. Based upon this body of literature, suggestions are offered for practitioners who are using, or would like to use, hypnosis for the amelioration of pain problems in their patients or clients.

Current psychological approaches to the management of chronic pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide a review of the rationale and evidence supporting three frequently used psychosocial interventions for chronic pain: cognitive-behavioral therapy, operant behavioral therapy and self-hypnosis training. We also review recent work in these areas, with an emphasis on the 2006 publishing year.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent clinical trials and laboratory work continue to support the use of cognitive-behavioral therapy and operant behavioral therapy as adjunctive treatments for chronic pain. Notable areas of new research include a novel program of systematic exposure to pain-related fear (such as fear of reinjury) and the adaptation of cognitive-behavioral therapy for special pain groups (e.g. juveniles and those with pain secondary to physical disability). Regarding self-hypnosis training, recent work suggests that hypnosis can provide temporary pain relief to the majority of individuals with chronic pain and that a substantial minority of these patients experience a clinically significant reduction in baseline pain over time.

SUMMARY

Cognitive-behavioral therapy and operant behavioral therapy treatments focus on factors that exacerbate or maintain suffering in chronic pain, and should be considered as part of a multidisciplinary treatment paradigm. Self-hypnosis training may also be of benefit, although it appears to be no more (or less) effective than other relaxation strategies that include hypnotic elements.