Comparative Accuracy of Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), and Non-verbal Pain Scale (NVPS) for Pain Assessment in Mechanically Ventilated Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Prospective Observational Study.
Derlin Thomas, Anoob J Kuruppasseril, Rahmath A Samad, Edwin J George
{"title":"Comparative Accuracy of Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), and Non-verbal Pain Scale (NVPS) for Pain Assessment in Mechanically Ventilated Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Prospective Observational Study.","authors":"Derlin Thomas, Anoob J Kuruppasseril, Rahmath A Samad, Edwin J George","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24984","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim and background: </strong>Evaluating pain in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation poses a unique clinical challenge, mainly because of their inability to self-report. Hence, our study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the critical care pain observation tool (CPOT) and the behavioral pain scale (BPS) in these patients. Additionally, we determined their individual and combined accuracy against the nonverbal pain scale (NVPS) and examined their correlation with physiological indicators, specifically heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Fifty mechanically ventilated patients were enrolled, with eight subsequently dropping out. Sedation was maintained using morphine and midazolam infusions, targeting a Ramsay Sedation Score above 3. Pain evaluation with CPOT, BPS, and NVPS were done at rest and during two painful stimuli: tracheal suctioning and patient repositioning, along with HR and BP measurements. Data were collected at four time points: At rest, during suctioning, post-repositioning, and finally again at rest.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Combined CPOT and BPS displayed superior diagnostic performance, showing the highest sensitivity (0.88), specificity (0.85), and AUC (0.87). Individually, both BPS (sensitivity 0.85, specificity 0.80) and CPOT (sensitivity 0.83, specificity 0.82) showed considerable accuracy, while NVPS (sensitivity 0.80, specificity 0.78) revealed comparatively lower sensitivity and specificity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The combined use of CPOT and BPS offers the most reliable method for assessing pain in ventilated ICU patients. Even though NVPS can be an ancillary tool, a multimodal pain assessment strategy ensures optimal patient comfort and care.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>Thomas D, Kuruppasseril AJ, Samad RA, George EJ. Comparative Accuracy of Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), and Non-verbal Pain Scale (NVPS) for Pain Assessment in Mechanically Ventilated Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Prospective Observational Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2025;29(6):492-497.</p>","PeriodicalId":47664,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine","volume":"29 6","pages":"492-497"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12186075/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24984","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim and background: Evaluating pain in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation poses a unique clinical challenge, mainly because of their inability to self-report. Hence, our study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the critical care pain observation tool (CPOT) and the behavioral pain scale (BPS) in these patients. Additionally, we determined their individual and combined accuracy against the nonverbal pain scale (NVPS) and examined their correlation with physiological indicators, specifically heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP).
Patients and methods: Fifty mechanically ventilated patients were enrolled, with eight subsequently dropping out. Sedation was maintained using morphine and midazolam infusions, targeting a Ramsay Sedation Score above 3. Pain evaluation with CPOT, BPS, and NVPS were done at rest and during two painful stimuli: tracheal suctioning and patient repositioning, along with HR and BP measurements. Data were collected at four time points: At rest, during suctioning, post-repositioning, and finally again at rest.
Results: Combined CPOT and BPS displayed superior diagnostic performance, showing the highest sensitivity (0.88), specificity (0.85), and AUC (0.87). Individually, both BPS (sensitivity 0.85, specificity 0.80) and CPOT (sensitivity 0.83, specificity 0.82) showed considerable accuracy, while NVPS (sensitivity 0.80, specificity 0.78) revealed comparatively lower sensitivity and specificity.
Conclusion: The combined use of CPOT and BPS offers the most reliable method for assessing pain in ventilated ICU patients. Even though NVPS can be an ancillary tool, a multimodal pain assessment strategy ensures optimal patient comfort and care.
How to cite this article: Thomas D, Kuruppasseril AJ, Samad RA, George EJ. Comparative Accuracy of Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), and Non-verbal Pain Scale (NVPS) for Pain Assessment in Mechanically Ventilated Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Prospective Observational Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2025;29(6):492-497.
期刊介绍:
Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine (ISSN 0972-5229) is specialty periodical published under the auspices of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine. Journal encourages research, education and dissemination of knowledge in the fields of critical and emergency medicine.