Pain assessment and analgesic management in patients admitted to intensive care: an Australian and New Zealand point prevalence study

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Benjamin L. Moran , David A. Scott , Elizabeth Holliday , Serena Knowles , Manoj Saxena , Ian Seppelt , Naomi Hammond , John A. Myburgh , For the George Institute for Global Health, the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group and the Pain in Survivors of Intensive Care Units (PAIN-ICU) Study Investigators
{"title":"Pain assessment and analgesic management in patients admitted to intensive care: an Australian and New Zealand point prevalence study","authors":"Benjamin L. Moran ,&nbsp;David A. Scott ,&nbsp;Elizabeth Holliday ,&nbsp;Serena Knowles ,&nbsp;Manoj Saxena ,&nbsp;Ian Seppelt ,&nbsp;Naomi Hammond ,&nbsp;John A. Myburgh ,&nbsp;For the George Institute for Global Health, the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group and the Pain in Survivors of Intensive Care Units (PAIN-ICU) Study Investigators","doi":"10.51893/2022.3.OA1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><strong>Objective:</strong> To describe pain assessment and analgesic management practices in patients in intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia and New Zealand.</p><p><strong>Design, setting and participants:</strong> Prospective, observational, multicentre, single-day point prevalence study conducted in Australian and New Zealand ICUs. Observational data were recorded for all adult patients admitted to an ICU without a neurological, neurosurgical or postoperative cardiac diagnosis. Demographic characteristics and data on pain assessment and analgesic management for a 24-hour period were collected.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures:</strong> Types of pain assessment tools used and frequency of their use, use of opioid analgesia, use of adjuvant analgesia, and differences in pain assessment and analgesic management between postoperative and non-operative patients.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> From the 499 patients enrolled from 45 ICUs, pain assessment was performed at least every 4 hours in 56% of patients (277/499), most commonly with a numerical rating scale. Overall, 286 patients (57%) received an opioid on the study day. Of the 181 mechanically ventilated patients, 135 (75%) received an intravenous opioid, with the predominant opioid infusion being fentanyl. The median dose of opioid infusion for ventilated patients was 140 mg oral morphine equivalents. Of the 318 non-ventilated patients, 41 (13%) received patient-controlled analgesia and 76 (24%) received an oral opioid, with the predominant opioid being oxycodone. Paracetamol was administered to 63 ventilated patients (35%) and 164 non-ventilated patients (52%), while 2% of all patients (11/499) received a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Ketamine infusion and regional analgesia were used in 15 patients (3%) and 17 patients (3%), respectively. Antineuropathic agents (predominantly gabapentinoids) were used in 53 patients (11%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Although a majority of ICU patients were frequently assessed for pain with a validated pain assessment tool, cumulative daily doses of opioids were high, and the use of multimodal adjuvant analgesia was low. Our data on current pain assessment and analgesic management practices may inform further research in this area.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49215,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care and Resuscitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1441277223000509/pdfft?md5=864a70ce1d359a096f829edce90c2071&pid=1-s2.0-S1441277223000509-main.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care and Resuscitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1441277223000509","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: To describe pain assessment and analgesic management practices in patients in intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia and New Zealand.

Design, setting and participants: Prospective, observational, multicentre, single-day point prevalence study conducted in Australian and New Zealand ICUs. Observational data were recorded for all adult patients admitted to an ICU without a neurological, neurosurgical or postoperative cardiac diagnosis. Demographic characteristics and data on pain assessment and analgesic management for a 24-hour period were collected.

Main outcome measures: Types of pain assessment tools used and frequency of their use, use of opioid analgesia, use of adjuvant analgesia, and differences in pain assessment and analgesic management between postoperative and non-operative patients.

Results: From the 499 patients enrolled from 45 ICUs, pain assessment was performed at least every 4 hours in 56% of patients (277/499), most commonly with a numerical rating scale. Overall, 286 patients (57%) received an opioid on the study day. Of the 181 mechanically ventilated patients, 135 (75%) received an intravenous opioid, with the predominant opioid infusion being fentanyl. The median dose of opioid infusion for ventilated patients was 140 mg oral morphine equivalents. Of the 318 non-ventilated patients, 41 (13%) received patient-controlled analgesia and 76 (24%) received an oral opioid, with the predominant opioid being oxycodone. Paracetamol was administered to 63 ventilated patients (35%) and 164 non-ventilated patients (52%), while 2% of all patients (11/499) received a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Ketamine infusion and regional analgesia were used in 15 patients (3%) and 17 patients (3%), respectively. Antineuropathic agents (predominantly gabapentinoids) were used in 53 patients (11%).

Conclusions: Although a majority of ICU patients were frequently assessed for pain with a validated pain assessment tool, cumulative daily doses of opioids were high, and the use of multimodal adjuvant analgesia was low. Our data on current pain assessment and analgesic management practices may inform further research in this area.

重症监护患者的疼痛评估和镇痛管理:一项澳大利亚和新西兰的点患病率研究
目的:描述澳大利亚和新西兰重症监护病房(icu)患者的疼痛评估和镇痛管理实践。设计、环境和参与者:在澳大利亚和新西兰icu中进行的前瞻性、观察性、多中心、单天点患病率研究。观察性数据记录了所有没有神经、神经外科或术后心脏诊断的ICU成年患者。收集24小时内的人口学特征和疼痛评估和镇痛管理数据。主要结局指标:使用的疼痛评估工具的类型和使用频率,阿片类镇痛的使用,辅助镇痛的使用,以及术后和非手术患者在疼痛评估和镇痛管理方面的差异。结果:从45个icu纳入的499例患者中,56%的患者(277/499)至少每4小时进行一次疼痛评估,最常见的是数字评分量表。总体而言,286名患者(57%)在研究当天接受了阿片类药物治疗。在181例机械通气患者中,135例(75%)接受静脉注射阿片类药物,主要输注阿片类药物为芬太尼。阿片类药物输注的中位剂量为140 mg口服吗啡当量。318例非通气患者中,41例(13%)接受患者自控镇痛,76例(24%)接受口服阿片类药物,主要阿片类药物为羟考酮。63例通气患者(35%)和164例非通气患者(52%)使用扑热息痛,2%的患者(11/499)使用非甾体类抗炎药。氯胺酮输注和局部镇痛分别为15例(3%)和17例(3%)。53例(11%)患者使用抗神经病变药物(主要是加巴喷丁类药物)。结论:尽管大多数ICU患者经常使用经过验证的疼痛评估工具进行疼痛评估,但阿片类药物的日累积剂量较高,而多模式辅助镇痛的使用较低。我们关于当前疼痛评估和镇痛管理实践的数据可以为该领域的进一步研究提供信息。
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
Critical Care and Resuscitation
Critical Care and Resuscitation CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
3.40%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ritical Care and Resuscitation (CC&R) is the official scientific journal of the College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM). The Journal is a quarterly publication (ISSN 1441-2772) with original articles of scientific and clinical interest in the specialities of Critical Care, Intensive Care, Anaesthesia, Emergency Medicine and related disciplines. The Journal is received by all Fellows and trainees, along with an increasing number of subscribers from around the world. The CC&R Journal currently has an impact factor of 3.3, placing it in 8th position in world critical care journals and in first position in the world outside the USA and Europe.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信