Procedural pain in intensive care: translating awareness into practice

Patient's experiences of endotracheal tubes and suction following cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of evidence addressing the patient experience of intensive care, including patient reports that the presence of an endotracheal tube is bothersome and distressing, and that endotracheal suction is moderately to extremely painful. Yet there remains little information about the patient experience of the endotracheal tube and suction in those patients receiving planned short-term mechanical ventilation.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to describe the patient experience of the endotracheal tube and suction, following mechanical ventilation in post-operative cardiac surgical patients.

DESIGN

This qualitative study used inductive thematic analysis. Participants having planned cardiac surgery, anticipated to receive less than 12-hours mechanical ventilation, were approached pre-operatively and written consent provided.

METHODS

Ten participants were recruited using purposive sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between days four and six post-operatively. One researcher interviewed all participants; two researchers independently read, coded, and agreed themes.

FINDINGS

None of the participants recalled endotracheal suction, while half had no recollection of the endotracheal tube. Three themes were identified; the experience of the endotracheal tube and extubation, the experience of emerging from sedation, and participants concerns about the future. The presence of the endotracheal tube was described as bothersome, whilst breathing through the tube and extubation were described as 'weird' and 'strange' but not painful.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge of the patient experience can help inform nursing practice by improving pre and post-operative care planning.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This study adds to the body of knowledge about the patient experience of the endotracheal tube and extubation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospective registration with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. www.anzctr.org.au (ACTRN12616001515482).

Assessing pain in critically ill brain-injured patients: a psychometric comparison of 3 pain scales and videopupillometry

Three clinical scales (the Nociception Coma Scale adapted for Intubated patients [NCS-I], its Revised version [NCS-R-I], and the Behavioral Pain Scale [BPS]) and videopupillometry were compared for measuring pain in intubated, noncommunicating, critically ill, brain-injured patients. Pain assessment was performed before, during, just after, and 5 minutes after 3 procedures: the reference non-nociceptive procedure (assessment of the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale) and 2 nociceptive procedures (turning and tracheal suctioning). The primary endpoint was construct validity (discriminant and criterion validation), determined by comparing pain measurements between different times/procedures. Secondary endpoints were internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and feasibility. Fifty patients (54% women, median age 63 years [56-68]) were included 13 [7-24] days after brain injury (76% hemorrhagic or ischemic strokes). All tools increased significantly more (P < 0.001) during the nociceptive procedures vs the non-nociceptive procedure. The BPS was the only pain tool that did not increase significantly during the non-nociceptive procedure (P = 0.41), suggesting that it was the most discriminant tool. The BPS, NCS-I, and NCS-R-I were good predictors of nociception with areas under the curves ≥0.96, contrary to videopupillometry (area under the curve = 0.67). The BPS, NCS-I, and NCS-I-R had high inter-rater reliabilities (weighted kappa = 0.86, 0.82 and 0.84, respectively). Internal consistency was moderate (>0.60) for all pain scales. Factor analysis represented a majority of information on a first dimension, with motor domains represented on a second dimension. Scale feasibility was better for the NCS-I and NCS-R-I than for the BPS. In conclusion, the BPS, NCS-I, and NCS-R-I are valid, reliable, and acceptable pain scales for use in intubated critically ill, brain-injured patients, unlike videopupillometry. Future research requires tool design centered on domains of observation adapted to this very specific population.

Analgesia nociception index for the assessment of pain in critically ill patients: a diagnostic accuracy study

Background

Behavioural pain tools are used in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients unable to self-report their pain-intensity but need sustained efforts to educate and train the ICU team because of the subjective nature of these clinical tools. This study measured the validity and performance of an electrophysiological monitoring tool based on the spectral analysis of heart rate variability, the Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) which varies from 0 (minimal parasympathetic tone, maximal stress-response and pain) to 100 (maximal parasympathetic tone, minimal stress-response and pain).

Methods

Mean-ANI (ANIm) and Instant-ANI (ANIi) were continuously recorded then compared with the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) before, during and after routine care procedures in critically-ill non-comatose patients.

Results

969 assessments were performed in 110 patients. ANIi was the most discriminative pain tool. It was significantly correlated with BPS (r=-0.30; 95%CI -0.37 to -0.25; P<0.001). For an ANIi threshold of 42.5, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were respectively 61.4%, 77.4%, 37.0%, and 90.4%. Compared with the BPS, ANIi had no significantly different ability to change during turning and tracheal-suctioning but changed significantly more during dressing change. ANIi increased independently with age, obesity and severity of illness, and controlled mechanical-ventilation, vasopressors use and analgesia. ANIi decreased independently when vigilance status and respiratory rate increased. ANIm demonstrated poor psychometric properties to detect pain.

Conclusions

Despite low sensitivity/specificity, ANIi≥43 had a Negative-Predictive-Value of 90%. Hence ANIi may be of highest benefit for excluding significant pain. A randomized controlled trial should compare sedation-analgesia protocols based on ANIi to presently recommended behavioural-pain-tools.

Research in Review: Advancing Critical Care Practice

Research published in 2016 identified strategies to enhance acute and critical care, initiated discussions on professional roles and responsibilities, clarified complex care issues, and led to robust debate. Some of this important work addressed strategies to prevent delirium and pressure ulcers, considerations for pain management within the context of the opioid abuse crisis, strategies to guide fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis and heart failure, and ways to enhance care for family members of intensive care patients. The new sepsis definitions highlight the importance of detecting and providing care to patients with sepsis outside of critical care areas. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy is an example of the advancement of research in genomics and personalized medicine and of the need to understand the care implications of these therapies. Other research topics include interprofessional collaboration and shared decision-making as well as nurses' role in family conferences. Resources such as policies related to medical futility and inappropriate care and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses' healthy work environment standards may inform conversations and provide strategies to address these complex issues.