Patients Express Satisfaction With Oral Pain Management During Shock Wave Lithotripsy

I have been invited to participate in this written debate, with Reem Al-Bareeq and John Denstedt, on the preferred treatment option for lower pole renal stones.

Karol Mathews DVM DVSc DACVECC (Canada) Peter W Kronen Dr Vet Med, DVM DECVAA (Switzerland) Duncan Lascelles BSc BVSc PhD DSAS DECVS DACVS MRCVS (USA) Andrea Nolan MVB DVA PhD DECVAA DECVPT MRCVS (UK) Sheilah Robertson BVMS (Hons) PhD DACVAA DECVAA DECAWBM (WSEL) DACAW MRCVS (USA) Paulo VM Steagall MV MS PhD DACVAA (Brazil/Canada) Bonnie Wright DVM DACVAA (USA) Kazuto Yamashita DVM MS PhD DJCVS (Japan)

As pain in the intensive care unit (ICU) is still common despite important progress in pain management, we studied the efficacy of an intravenous bolus of morphine 2.5 vs 7.5 mg for procedural pain relief in patients after cardiothoracic surgery in the ICU. In a prospective double-blind randomised study, 117 ICU patients after cardiothoracic surgery were included. All patients were treated according a pain titration protocol for pain at rest, consisting of continuous morphine infusions and paracetamol, applied during the entire ICU stay. On the first postoperative day, patients were randomised to intravenous morphine 2.5 (n=59) or 7.5 mg (n=58) 30 minutes before a painful intervention (turning of patient and/or chest drain removal). Pain scores using the numeric rating scale (Numeric Rating Scale, range 0 to 10) were rated at rest (baseline) and around the painful procedure. At rest (baseline), overall incidence of unacceptable pain (Numeric Rating Scale ≥4) was low (Numeric Rating Scale >4; 14 vs 17%, P=0.81) for patients allocated to morphine 2.5 and 7.5 mg respectively. For procedure-related pain, there was no difference in incidence of unacceptable pain (28 vs 22%, P=0.53) mean pain scores (2.6 [95% confidence interval 2.0 to 3.2] vs 2.7 [95% confidence interval 2.0 to 3.4]) between patients receiving morphine 2.5 and 7.5 mg respectively. In intensive care patients after cardiothoracic surgery with low pain levels for pain at rest, there was no difference in efficacy between intravenous morphine 2.5 mg or morphine 7.5 mg for pain relief during a painful intervention.

Introduction The assessment and treatment of pain has become increasingly important in light of the opioid epidemic. Inadequately managed pain can lead to increased risk of psychiatric illness. The numeric rating scale (NRS) is used in most ICUs and only assesses pain intensity. Although it is reliable, valid, and user-friendly, other publications have criticized this one-dimensional pain assessment tools as offering little information about the impact of the pain on the patient’s life. The defense and veterans pain rating scale (DVPRS) is a multi-dimensional tool designed to assess the patient’s pain intensity as well as how the pain interferes with the patient’s general activity, sleep, mood and stress. Studies have shown that it has good validity and reliability in the inpatient and outpatient military population with neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain. The DVPRS has not been evaluated in critical care patients. Thus, this study comparatively investigated ICU patients’ satisfaction with the DVPRS versus the NRS. Methods This was a prospective pilot study performed from September 2018 to July 2019 in a 10 bed burn intensive care unit (BICU) and 10 bed surgical intensive care unit (SICU) at a university teaching hospital. This was an IRB approved study. All enrolled patients were older than 18 years of age and were CAM-ICU negative. The participating staff members were educated on the use of the scales prior to the start of the study. Routine treatment of pain was not altered by the study. Pain was assessed by staff nurses randomly assigned to use the NRS or DVPRS tool. The selected tool was used on admission, during wound care and every 4 hours or upon patient need. The patients completed satisfaction surveys on the day of discharge. Results 42 patients participated and 32 completed the study. 18 patients were in the DVPRS arm and 14 were in the NRS arm. Our primary outcome was patient satisfaction, ranked on a scale from 0–10, where 0 was the lowest score and 10 was the highest. Overall, patients in the DVPRS cohort had higher median satisfaction scores (median score: 10, interquartile range: 8–10) than the NRS cohort (median score: 8, interquartile range 7–9), though this difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.16). However, DVPRS patients were significantly more likely to be “completely satisfied” than NRS patients (55.6% in DVPRS patients versus 21.4% in NRS patients; p=0.04). Furthermore, upon multivariate logistic analysis adjusting for age, gender, and ICU using the NRS pain scale conferred lower odds of complete satisfaction with pain management (odds ratio: 0.19, p=0.04). Conclusions Our study showed that ICU patients preferred the DVPRS over the NRS. The DVPRS appeared to be as effective as the NRS in pain relief and gave providers more information about patients’ pain.

Management of cancer pain: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines

Physiology and Treatment of Pain

A Clinical Nomogram to Predict the Successful Shock Wave Lithotripsy of Renal and Ureteral Calculi

Pain Perception During Shock Wave Lithotripsy: Does It Correlate With Patient and Stone Characteristics?

Even though abdominal pain is one of the most frequent chief complaints in emergency medicine, standardized care pathways are still lacking. In this study, a standardized, digitally-supported care pathway for non-traumatic abdominal pain in the emergency department was investigated with regard to emergency department length of treatment, pain score at discharge, and patient satisfaction. In a prospective mixed-methods, multicentre, cluster-randomised, controlled stepped wedge trial, adult patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain were enrolled in ten emergency departments across Germany. The new care pathway was implemented at randomly assigned time points (every four months) within a 24-month recruitment period and consisted of a structured care pathway for the management of abdominal pain patients in the emergency department. During the control period, the standard treatment for abdominal pain in the emergency department was administered. The planned sample size was 2000. Primary outcomes were: emergency department length of treatment, pain score (numeric rating scale 0-10), and patient satisfaction score at the end of emergency department treatment. Exploratory safety outcomes were serious adverse events within 30 days. Trial registration: DRKS00021052. Of 2119 patients, 1017 were enrolled in the control group, and 1102 in the intervention group. Crude mean emergency department length of treatment was 5.2 h (±3.0) in the control group, and 4.3 h (±2.2) in the intervention group while the adjusted mean difference was -0.31 h (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to 0.07). Mean pain score was 4.3 (±2.5) in the control group, and 3.6 (±2.4) in the intervention group, resulting in an adjusted mean difference of -0.69 (95% CI -1.04 to -0.34). The adjusted mean difference of patient's satisfaction score was 1.54 (95% CI 0.96 to 2.12); mean control group: 26.7 (±4.0); mean intervention group: 27.9 (±3.8)). Serious adverse events were comparable between both groups while 30-day mortality was 2.3% (n = 23) in the control group, and 0.8% (n = 9) in the intervention group (mean difference: -1.4% (95% CI -2.5 to -0.4)). The APU process is safe and did not increase emergency department length of treatment, while patient-reported outcomes and safety were improved accompanied by an increased use of diagnostic procedures. The study was funded by the German Innovations Funds.

Shock Wave Lithotripsy vs Ureteroscopy: Variation in Surgical Management of Kidney Stones at Freestanding Children's Hospitals

Limited understanding of the interpretability of patient-reported pain scores may impact pain management. The current study assessed the minimal clinically significant improvement in pain and pain scores signifying patient-reported need for medication and treatment satisfaction in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD). Patients, 8-18-years-old, with SCD were recruited while receiving treatment for pain. Patients completed initial pain severity ratings using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Serial assessments of pain severity, pain relief, perceived need for medication, and treatment satisfaction were completed in the emergency department and the hospitalization. Data were used to calculate the minimal clinically significant improvement in pain and pain scores associated with perceived need for pain medication and treatment satisfaction. Twenty-eight patients completed 305 assessments during 37 total visits. A decrease in pain severity score of 0.97 cm for the VAS and 0.9 for the NRS was found to be the minimum clinically significant improvement in pain. Pain scores >7.45 cm on the VAS or 7.5 on the NRS were suggestive of patient-reported need for pain medication. Pain scores <7.35 cm on the VAS or 8.5 on the NRS were suggestive of patient-reported treatment satisfaction discrimination. The minimal clinical significant improvement was defined for the VAS and NRS and both scales were able to discriminate between important clinical findings including pain relief, need for pain medication, and treatment satisfaction. Collectively, this study provides data to improve our understanding of pain ratings of pediatric patients with SCD.

Clinical Trials of the Surgical Management of Urolithiasis: Current Status and Future Needs

PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL COMPARING SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY AND URETEROSCOPY FOR MANAGEMENT OF DISTAL URETERAL CALCULI

Long-term Results of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy and Endoscopic Therapy for Pancreatic Stones

To compare the clinical efficacy between locally applied diclofenac diethylamine gel, EMLA cream and systemically given diclofenac sodium for the pain relief during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) using Dornier Delta Compact Lithotripter. One hundred five patients with renal stones were randomly divided in to 3 groups. Group A was given intramuscular diclofenac sodium (1 mg/kg), 45 minutes before the procedure. In group B, 10 gm of eutectic mixture of local anesthetic (EMLA) cream and in group C, 15 gm of diclofenac diethylamine gel was applied locally 45 minutes before the procedure. Ten-score linear and visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to assess the severity of pain during the procedure. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to compare various parameters and analyzed statistically. All the three groups were not statistically different with respect to age, weight, stone size, number of shock wave delivered and maximum voltage used (P > .05). The mean pain score in group A was 4.48, in group B was 3.60 and in group C was 3.95, which were not significantly different (P = 1.34). Complication like skin lesion was found only in injection diclofenac sodium group whereas cold sensation at the local site was typically found in diclofenac diethylamine gel group. Although not statistically significant, the mean pain score in locally applied analgesic agents (EMLA and diclofenac diethylamine gel) is lower as compared to intramuscularly given diclofenac sodium. Among these two locally acting drugs, diclofenac diethylamine gel is an equally effective alternative to EMLA.