Min Kyoung Kim, Oh Haeng Lee, Geun Joo Choi, Hyun Kang
{"title":"使用镇痛伤害感觉指数评估镇静患者的疼痛:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Min Kyoung Kim, Oh Haeng Lee, Geun Joo Choi, Hyun Kang","doi":"10.3344/kjp.25105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis analyzed the utility of the Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) in detecting intraoperative and procedural pain in sedated patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, and Google Scholar databases was performed to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of ANI, assessed by pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Secondary outcomes were the correlation between ANI and pain assessment scales, the effect of norepinephrine (NE) on ANI, and differences in opioid consumption between the ANI-guided and control groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven studies were included in the systematic review, with ten studies incorporated into the meta-analysis. ANI demonstrated moderate sensitivity (0.746, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.683-0.803) and specificity (0.776, 95% CI = 0.741-0.808) for detecting intraoperative and procedural pain, with a pooled DOR of 10.491. ANI was lower in the pain state than that in the no-pain state (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -1.140, 95% CI = -1.239 to -1.041, I<sup>2</sup> = 93.63%). ANI-guided analgesia was associated with a significant reduction in opioid consumption (SMD = -0.410, 95% CI = -0.643 to -0.178, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%). There were no significant differences in ANI between the NE and control groups. ANI showed a negative correlation with pain scales (<i>r</i> = -0.110 to -0.470).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ANI effectively differentiated between the pain and non-pain states in sedated patients with moderate diagnostic accuracy and helped reduce opioid consumption. However, the high heterogeneity suggests the need for cautious interpretation.</p>","PeriodicalId":56252,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":"341-354"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12221952/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pain assessment using the Analgesia Nociception Index in patients undergoing sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Min Kyoung Kim, Oh Haeng Lee, Geun Joo Choi, Hyun Kang\",\"doi\":\"10.3344/kjp.25105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis analyzed the utility of the Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) in detecting intraoperative and procedural pain in sedated patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, and Google Scholar databases was performed to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of ANI, assessed by pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Secondary outcomes were the correlation between ANI and pain assessment scales, the effect of norepinephrine (NE) on ANI, and differences in opioid consumption between the ANI-guided and control groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven studies were included in the systematic review, with ten studies incorporated into the meta-analysis. ANI demonstrated moderate sensitivity (0.746, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.683-0.803) and specificity (0.776, 95% CI = 0.741-0.808) for detecting intraoperative and procedural pain, with a pooled DOR of 10.491. ANI was lower in the pain state than that in the no-pain state (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -1.140, 95% CI = -1.239 to -1.041, I<sup>2</sup> = 93.63%). ANI-guided analgesia was associated with a significant reduction in opioid consumption (SMD = -0.410, 95% CI = -0.643 to -0.178, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%). There were no significant differences in ANI between the NE and control groups. ANI showed a negative correlation with pain scales (<i>r</i> = -0.110 to -0.470).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ANI effectively differentiated between the pain and non-pain states in sedated patients with moderate diagnostic accuracy and helped reduce opioid consumption. However, the high heterogeneity suggests the need for cautious interpretation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56252,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"341-354\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12221952/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korean Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.25105\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.25105","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:本系统综述和荟萃分析分析了镇痛伤害感觉指数(ANI)在检测镇静患者术中和术中疼痛中的应用。方法:全面检索Cochrane中央对照试验注册库、Ovid-MEDLINE、Ovid-Embase和谷歌Scholar数据库,以确定相关研究。主要结局是ANI的诊断准确性,通过合并敏感性、特异性、似然比和诊断优势比(DOR)进行评估。次要结果是ANI与疼痛评估量表之间的相关性,去甲肾上腺素(NE)对ANI的影响,以及ANI引导组和对照组之间阿片类药物消费的差异。结果:系统评价纳入了11项研究,meta分析纳入了10项研究。ANI在检测术中和术中疼痛方面表现出中等的敏感性(0.746,95%可信区间[CI] = 0.683-0.803)和特异性(0.776,95% CI = 0.741-0.808),合并DOR为10.491。疼痛状态下ANI低于无疼痛状态(标准化平均差[SMD] = -1.140, 95% CI = -1.239 ~ -1.041, I2 = 93.63%)。ani引导的镇痛与阿片类药物消耗的显著减少相关(SMD = -0.410, 95% CI = -0.643至-0.178,I2 = 0.0%)。NE组与对照组间ANI无显著差异。ANI与疼痛量表呈负相关(r = -0.110 ~ -0.470)。结论:ANI可有效区分镇静患者的疼痛和非疼痛状态,诊断准确性中等,有助于减少阿片类药物的消耗。然而,高度异质性表明需要谨慎解释。
Pain assessment using the Analgesia Nociception Index in patients undergoing sedation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis analyzed the utility of the Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) in detecting intraoperative and procedural pain in sedated patients.
Methods: A comprehensive search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, and Google Scholar databases was performed to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of ANI, assessed by pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Secondary outcomes were the correlation between ANI and pain assessment scales, the effect of norepinephrine (NE) on ANI, and differences in opioid consumption between the ANI-guided and control groups.
Results: Eleven studies were included in the systematic review, with ten studies incorporated into the meta-analysis. ANI demonstrated moderate sensitivity (0.746, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.683-0.803) and specificity (0.776, 95% CI = 0.741-0.808) for detecting intraoperative and procedural pain, with a pooled DOR of 10.491. ANI was lower in the pain state than that in the no-pain state (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -1.140, 95% CI = -1.239 to -1.041, I2 = 93.63%). ANI-guided analgesia was associated with a significant reduction in opioid consumption (SMD = -0.410, 95% CI = -0.643 to -0.178, I2 = 0.0%). There were no significant differences in ANI between the NE and control groups. ANI showed a negative correlation with pain scales (r = -0.110 to -0.470).
Conclusions: ANI effectively differentiated between the pain and non-pain states in sedated patients with moderate diagnostic accuracy and helped reduce opioid consumption. However, the high heterogeneity suggests the need for cautious interpretation.
期刊介绍:
Korean Journal of Pain (Korean J Pain, KJP) is the official journal of the Korean Pain Society, founded in 1986. It has been published since 1988. It publishes peer reviewed original articles related to all aspects of pain, including clinical and basic research, patient care, education, and health policy. It has been published quarterly in English since 2009 (on the first day of January, April, July, and October). In addition, it has also become the official journal of the International Spinal Pain Society since 2016. The mission of the Journal is to improve the care of patients in pain by providing a forum for clinical researchers, basic scientists, clinicians, and other health professionals. The circulation number per issue is 50.