Challenges of pain management in neurologically injured patients: systematic review protocol of analgesia and sedation strategies for early recovery from neurointensive care

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) in ICU Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The critical care pain observation tool (CPOT) has been widely used to assess pain in ICU patients, and its validity and reliability have been tested in various contexts.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the CPOT in critically ill patients, a systematic review of diagnostic studies was performed.

METHODS

A database search (PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, ProQuest, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, COVIP, CBM) was conducted, as was the manual identification of eligible papers from citations. Eligible studies were published between 2006 and February 2020. Quality appraisal of the studies was carried out with the QUADAS-2 checklist, and data extraction was performed in alignment with STARD 2015. Open Meta Analyst was used for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 25 articles involving 1920 subjects with 3493 experimental results were included. Most of the studies were of fair quality. A high degree of heterogeneity (I² = 57.2%, P < 0.001) was discovered. The Youden index values were 1.56 and 1.55 when the CPOT threshold was set at two and three, respectively. The diagnostic performance of the CPOT was affected by the reference standard. The CPOT had a higher diagnostic odds ratio of 11.52 (95% CI: 7.42-17.87) during nociceptive procedures compared with 9.14 (95% CI: 5.38-15.53) at rest or during non-nociceptive procedures.

CONCLUSION

CPOT has moderate diagnostic parameters with a threshold of two or three, suggesting that it is a fair but not excellent tool. More research on the validity of the CPOT in specific subgroups is needed to broaden its applicability in critical care.

The effect of using Richmond agitation and sedation scale on hospital stay, ventilator dependence, and mortality rate in ICU inpatients: a randomised clinical trial

Background

Managing the amount of use of sedatives due to their high side effects in the intensive care unit is essential. Sedation-agitation protocols may play an important role in this regard. However, they have not been practically applied in Iran.

Aims

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of using the Richmond agitation and sedation scale on hospital stay duration and dependency rate on the intensive care unit ventilator system in Ahwaz City, Iran, in 2016-2017.

Methods

This randomised clinical trial was conducted on 74 patients. The subjects were selected by a stratified sampling method and divided into the experimental (n = 32) and control (n = 32) groups. Sedation and agitation levels were managed by the Richmond agitation and sedation scale as soon as the samples were anxious and agitated, and every 6 hours in the intervention group. However, the control group received routine care. The data obtained were analysed by the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

Results

There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of demographic variables, such as age, gender, admission diagnosis and Glasgow coma scale scores on admission. However, they differed in terms of hospital stay duration and ventilator connection (P < 0.001), Glasgow coma scale score at the separation time from the device (P < 0.001), Glasgow coma scale score at the discharge time from the intensive care unit (P < 0.02) and intensive care unit death rate (P < 0.001). In all cases mentioned previously, the intervention group's condition was better.

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, as well as the approval of validation and reliability of the Richmond agitation and sedation scale in different studies, this protocol can be very effective in optimising the use of sedatives in the intensive care unit.