Nociception level index monitoring in intensive care: pain awareness in pressure ulcer care in unconscious patients: a randomized controlled pilot study.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Berna Caliskan, Zeki Beşir
{"title":"Nociception level index monitoring in intensive care: pain awareness in pressure ulcer care in unconscious patients: a randomized controlled pilot study.","authors":"Berna Caliskan, Zeki Beşir","doi":"10.1007/s11845-025-04078-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pain management in intensive care is challenging due to multiple potential causes. The physiological consequences of uncontrolled pain can adversely affect treatment. Reliable, objective pain monitoring may therefore improve care.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To investigate the validity and clinical impact of the Nociception Level Index (NOL®) for guiding analgesia in intensive care patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomized, prospective, controlled study included 40 ICU patients assigned to either a control group or a NOL-guided group (n = 20 each). During daily pressure ulcer care, the NOL group received analgesia according to continuous nociception monitoring, while the control group was managed with fentanyl boluses (1 µg/kg) guided by the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT). Hemodynamic variables and variability were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total fentanyl use was significantly higher in the NOL group (67.5 ± 53.25 µg) than in the control group (37.5 ± 32.9 µg), with a mean difference of 30 µg (95% CI 1.7-58.3 µg, p = 0.04, Cohen's d = 0.68), corresponding to ~ 40% greater opioid use. At the start of care, systolic blood pressure (SBP) was higher in the control group (mean difference 12.5 mmHg, 95% CI 2.1-22.9 mmHg, p = 0.02, d = 0.62), while delta SBP was lower in the NOL group (mean difference -8 mmHg, 95% CI -15.2 to -0.8 mmHg, p = 0.03, d = 0.58).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>NOL® monitoring may serve as an effective tool to guide analgesic needs in unconscious ICU patients, enabling objective pain assessment and contributing to hemodynamic stability.</p>","PeriodicalId":14507,"journal":{"name":"Irish Journal of Medical Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Irish Journal of Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-025-04078-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pain management in intensive care is challenging due to multiple potential causes. The physiological consequences of uncontrolled pain can adversely affect treatment. Reliable, objective pain monitoring may therefore improve care.

Aims: To investigate the validity and clinical impact of the Nociception Level Index (NOL®) for guiding analgesia in intensive care patients.

Methods: This randomized, prospective, controlled study included 40 ICU patients assigned to either a control group or a NOL-guided group (n = 20 each). During daily pressure ulcer care, the NOL group received analgesia according to continuous nociception monitoring, while the control group was managed with fentanyl boluses (1 µg/kg) guided by the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT). Hemodynamic variables and variability were also assessed.

Results: Total fentanyl use was significantly higher in the NOL group (67.5 ± 53.25 µg) than in the control group (37.5 ± 32.9 µg), with a mean difference of 30 µg (95% CI 1.7-58.3 µg, p = 0.04, Cohen's d = 0.68), corresponding to ~ 40% greater opioid use. At the start of care, systolic blood pressure (SBP) was higher in the control group (mean difference 12.5 mmHg, 95% CI 2.1-22.9 mmHg, p = 0.02, d = 0.62), while delta SBP was lower in the NOL group (mean difference -8 mmHg, 95% CI -15.2 to -0.8 mmHg, p = 0.03, d = 0.58).

Conclusion: NOL® monitoring may serve as an effective tool to guide analgesic needs in unconscious ICU patients, enabling objective pain assessment and contributing to hemodynamic stability.

重症监护中的伤害感觉水平指数监测:无意识患者压疮护理中的疼痛意识:一项随机对照先导研究。
背景:由于多种潜在原因,重症监护中的疼痛管理具有挑战性。不受控制的疼痛的生理后果会对治疗产生不利影响。因此,可靠、客观的疼痛监测可以改善护理。目的:探讨痛觉水平指数(NOL®)对指导重症患者镇痛的有效性及临床意义。方法:这项随机、前瞻性、对照研究包括40例ICU患者,分为对照组和nol引导组(各20例)。在日常压疮护理中,NOL组在持续痛性监测下给予镇痛,对照组在重症疼痛观察工具(CPOT)指导下给予芬太尼丸(1µg/kg)。血流动力学变量和变异性也被评估。结果:NOL组芬太尼总使用量(67.5±53.25µg)显著高于对照组(37.5±32.9µg),平均差异为30µg (95% CI 1.7 ~ 58.3µg, p = 0.04, Cohen’s d = 0.68),对应阿片类药物使用量增加~ 40%。在治疗开始时,对照组收缩压(SBP)较高(平均差异12.5 mmHg, 95% CI 2.1-22.9 mmHg, p = 0.02, d = 0.62),而NOL组收缩压较低(平均差异-8 mmHg, 95% CI -15.2至-0.8 mmHg, p = 0.03, d = 0.58)。结论:NOL®监测可作为指导无意识ICU患者镇痛需求的有效工具,有助于客观评估疼痛,促进血流动力学稳定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Irish Journal of Medical Science
Irish Journal of Medical Science 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
357
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Irish Journal of Medical Science is the official organ of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland. Established in 1832, this quarterly journal is a contribution to medical science and an ideal forum for the younger medical/scientific professional to enter world literature and an ideal launching platform now, as in the past, for many a young research worker. The primary role of both the Academy and IJMS is that of providing a forum for the exchange of scientific information and to promote academic discussion, so essential to scientific progress.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信