Derlin Thomas, Anoob J Kuruppasseril, Rahmath A Samad, Edwin J George
{"title":"危重护理疼痛观察工具(CPOT)、行为疼痛量表(BPS)和非言语疼痛量表(NVPS)在机械通气重症监护病房患者疼痛评估中的比较准确性:一项前瞻性观察研究","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
目的和背景:评估机械通气危重患者的疼痛是一个独特的临床挑战,主要是因为他们无法自我报告。因此,我们的研究旨在比较重症监护疼痛观察工具(CPOT)和行为疼痛量表(BPS)在这些患者中的有效性。此外,我们根据非语言疼痛量表(NVPS)确定了它们的个体和组合准确性,并检查了它们与生理指标(特别是心率(HR)和血压(BP))的相关性。患者和方法:50例机械通气患者入组,8例退出。注射吗啡和咪达唑仑维持镇静,目标是拉姆齐镇静评分大于3。CPOT、BPS和NVPS的疼痛评估分别在休息时和两种疼痛刺激时进行:气管吸引和患者重新定位,以及HR和BP测量。在四个时间点收集数据:休息时、吸痰时、重新定位后和休息时。结果:CPOT联合BPS具有较好的诊断效果,灵敏度(0.88)、特异度(0.85)、AUC(0.87)最高。单独来看,BPS(敏感性0.85,特异性0.80)和CPOT(敏感性0.83,特异性0.82)均具有较高的准确性,而NVPS(敏感性0.80,特异性0.78)的敏感性和特异性相对较低。结论:CPOT与BPS联合应用是评估ICU通气患者疼痛最可靠的方法。尽管NVPS可以作为辅助工具,但多模式疼痛评估策略可以确保最佳的患者舒适度和护理。本文引用方式:Thomas D, Kuruppasseril AJ, Samad RA, George EJ。危重护理疼痛观察工具(CPOT)、行为疼痛量表(BPS)和非言语疼痛量表(NVPS)在机械通气重症监护病房患者疼痛评估中的比较准确性:一项前瞻性观察研究中华检验医学杂志;2015;29(6):492-497。
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.
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.