Preventing procedural pain in the elderly: a major challenge

After completing this article, readers should be able to: 1. Describe the pain assessment tools used for preterm and term neonates. 2. List painful procedures in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). 3. Describe nonpharmacologic interventions for alleviating neonatal pain. 4. Describe pharmacologic methods used for neonatal analgesia. 5. Delineate the adverse effects of the common forms of pain relief. Neonates are sensitive to pain and vulnerable to both its short- and long-term effects. However, there is a lack of consistency in both attitudes and practices among NICU staff with regard to pain assessment and management in neonates. Recognition of the clinical importance of neonatal pain and stress has been delayed and hampered by the lack of awareness that newborns are capable of experiencing pain, insufficient knowledge about the developing nervous system, difficulty in assessing neonatal pain, lack of evidence for the safety and efficacy of different modalities available for the treatment of pain, and fears about adverse effects associated with analgesic use. Neonatal pain has been of minimal concern until the last 25 years. For example, at one time, neonates were given paralytic drugs without anesthesia for major surgical procedures because physicians believed that neonates were incapable of interpreting or remembering pain. Further, there was no understanding of the consequences of untreated pain. Newer technologies to sustain life have exposed neonates to multiple invasive procedures and prolonged hospital stays that are associated with acute and chronic pain and stress. In 2001, an international evidence-based group for neonatal pain developed guidelines for the assessment, prevention, and treatment of neonatal pain in an effort to standardize practices for physicians and health care facilities. Within the consensus statement, the group defined general principles to prevent and treat pain and listed the most commonly performed diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical procedures in the NICU. The guidelines also indicated the …

How often do we perform painful and stressful procedures in the paediatric intensive care unit? A prospective observational study

Validating skin conductance for measuring acute pain in mechanically ventilated infants

Parental presence during painful or invasive procedures in neonatology: A survey of healthcare professionals

Pain management in critically ill children is complex. Epidemiological research is needed to identify how often patients in pediatric intensive care units experience pain and the practices being used to lessen pain. To describe pain assessment and intervention practices in pediatric intensive care units, determine the prevalence of pain and painful procedures, and identify characteristics of children with moderate to severe pain. A 24-hour observational cohort study was conducted in 15 units. Nurses completed surveys regarding patients' communicative ability. Patients' records were reviewed for pain assessments, painful procedures, and pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions. For the 220 patients in this study, pain was assessed a median (interquartile range) of 10 (7-13) times, usually with behavioral pain scales. Sixty-eight percent of patients received pharmacologic interventions and 44% received nonpharmacologic interventions. Fentanyl was the most common analgesic provided. Repositioning was the most common nonpharmacologic intervention. Forty-five percent of patients had pain and 24% had moderate to severe pain. Patients experienced a median (interquartile range) of 7 (2-15) painful procedures in 24 hours. More frequent pain assessments and pharmacologic interventions and the ability to communicate were associated with moderate to severe pain. No patient in the moderate to severe pain category received neuromuscular blockers. Critically ill children experience pain and multiple painful procedures daily. Assessment and intervention practices vary considerably. Research is needed to establish best practices for pain assessment in patients with limited communicative ability and to determine which pain management strategies improve patients' outcomes.

Assessing pain in mechanically ventilated infants is challenging. The assessment of skin conductance (SC) is based on the sympathetic nervous system response to stress. This study purpose was to evaluate the validity of SC for assessing pain in mechanically ventilated infants. A prospective cross-sectional observational design was used to study SC and its relation to: the category of procedure (i.e., painful or non-painful); the phase of procedure (i.e., before, during and after), and referent pain measurements (i.e., Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R) and Neonatal Facial Coding System (NFCS)). Eligible infants were those up to 12months of age, in intensive care units, who were mechanically ventilated, and required painful and non-painful procedures. From October 2017 to November 2018, 130 eligible infants were identified, and 55 infants were studied. SC (number of waves per second) during painful procedures (median 0.27, interquartile range 0.2-0.4) was statistically significantly higher than those during non-painful procedures (0, 0-0.09). SC during painful procedures was statistically significantly higher than those before (0, 0-0.07) and after painful procedures (0, 0-0.07). SC showed moderate statistically significant positive correlations with PIPP-R (Spearman's rho=0.4-0.62) and the four-item NFCS (Spearman's rho=0.31-0.67) before, during and after painful or non-painful procedures respectively. SC had excellent performance (area under the receiver operator curve=0.979) with excellent sensitivity (92.31%), specificity (95.42%) and negative predictive value (99.21%) but only sufficient positive predictive value (66.67%) when used to discriminate moderate-to-severe pain. SC showed good validity for assessing pain in critically ill infants requiring mechanical ventilation. Pain assessment in mechanically ventilated infants is challenging. In this study, the validity of skin conductance (SC) for pain assessment is evaluated in the same population of infants during painful and nonpainful procedures. SC showed good validity for assessing acute pain in relation to category of procedure, phase of procedure, and referent pain measurements. SC is a promising method, especially with other pain assessment methods and other determinants of pain, in a multimodal pain assessment approach to understand the complexity of pain in mechanically ventilated infants.

ABSTRACTAimTo analyse the incidence of physical restraint use during painful and stressful procedures in hospitalised children, as well as the factors associated with its use.DesignObservational, longitudinal and prospective study.MethodsChildren aged between 28 days and 10 years in a public hospital in Brazil were each observed undergoing clinical procedures over a 6‐h period. Data were collected on demographics, observed pain using validated measures, stress behaviours, and the use of physical restraint. Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed. National ethical guidelines were strictly followed.Results1210 procedures were observed on 75 children, including 351 painful and 859 stressful procedures. Physical restraint was used in 270 (22.3%) procedures; of these, 131 (48.5%) were painful procedures and 139 (51.5%) were stressful procedures. In stressful procedures, at least one stress‐related behaviour was observed before the initiation of physical restraint. Factors associated with increased use of physical restraint during painful procedures were younger children, with higher levels of care dependency, higher pain scores during procedures, and those who underwent intravenous medication administration, airway suctioning, tube insertion, and fixation changes. In stressful procedures, the factors associated with higher use of physical restraint were younger children, hospitalisation due to respiratory conditions, those who underwent physical examinations, inhaled medication, and nasal lavage; and the child's expression of stress behaviour before the procedure starts. Predictors of physical restraint included morning period, younger age group, male or female sex, and transfer from the Intensive Care Unit.ConclusionA high incidence of physical restraints was observed across multiple painful and stressful procedures performed within a 6‐h period, associated with variables related to both the child's characteristics and the procedures.Implications for the Profession and/or Patient CareThis study aims to encourage reconsideration of the frequent use of physical restraint in paediatric procedures, calling for a reframing of its application as an unquestioned practice toward an approach that prioritises protecting and respecting a child as a subject with needs, rights, and desires.Reporting MethodStrengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE).

Data suggest parents' preprocedural anxiety is related to children's acute procedural anxiety and pain. This study examined the temporal relations among these constructs to determine whether children's anxiety mediates the relation between parents' anticipatory anxiety and children's procedural pain. A total of 90 preschoolers receiving immunizations, their parents, and the nurses rated children's procedural anxiety and pain. Parents provided ratings of their own preprocedural anxiety. Bootstrapping analyses revealed that children's procedural anxiety mediated the relation between parents' preprocedural anxiety and children's procedural pain according to parents' report and nurses' report but not children's self-report of anxiety and pain. Analyses suggest that children's procedural anxiety mediates the relation between parents' anticipatory anxiety and children's procedural pain. Thus, targeting parents' preprocedural anxiety might be beneficial to the parents as well as the children undergoing a distressing medical procedure.

Analgesia and Sedation in Critically Ill Patients With Burns.

Education or sedation? A randomized clinical trial of impact on procedural pain and satisfaction during regional block placement, and the moderating effect of pain catastrophizing.

The catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) Val158Met polymorphism affected pain sensitivity of healthy volunteers upon application of experimental pain stimuli. The relevance of these findings in morphine-treated postoperative cardiac patients undergoing painful healthcare procedures is unknown; therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether the COMT Val158Met polymorphism increases pain sensitivity in morphine-treated patients undergoing an unavoidable painful routine procedure after cardiac surgery. One hundred and seventeen postoperative cardiac patients in the intensive care unit were genotyped for the COMT Val158Met polymorphism. All patients were treated with continuous morphine infusions for pain at rest, and received a bolus of morphine (2.5 or 7.5 mg) before a painful procedure (turning and/or chest drain removal) on the first postoperative day. Numerical rating scale (NRS) scores were evaluated at the following four time points: at baseline (at rest), and before, during and after the painful procedure. Overall mean NRS scores were significantly higher in patients carrying the Met-variant allele. During the painful procedure, the mean NRS score was significantly higher for Met/Met patients compared with Val/Met and Val/Val patients (mean NRS 3.4 ± 2.8, 2.7 ± 2.4 and 1.7 ± 1.7, respectively; P = 0.04). In Met/Met patients, the increase in NRS scores during the painful procedure compared with the baseline NRS score was clinically relevant (ΔNRS ≥ 1.3) and statistically significant and appeared to be independent of sex and the morphine bolus dose. Our results show that the COMT Val158Met polymorphism contributes to variability in pain sensitivity after cardiac surgery of morphine-treated patients in the intensive care unit, because Met-allele carriers were more sensitive to overall pain and procedure-related pain.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of immersive virtual reality (IVR) distraction therapy during painful wound care procedures in adults on the amount of opioid medications required to manage pain. A convenience sample of consenting, adult inpatients requiring recurrent painful wound care procedures was studied. Using a within-subject, randomized controlled trial study design, 2 sequential wound procedures were compared, 1 with IVR distraction therapy and 1 without IVR. Total opioid medications administered before and during the wound procedures were recorded and pain and anxiety were rated before and after the 2 wound procedures. The IVR intervention included the wearing of virtual reality goggles and participation in an immersive, computer generated, interactive, 3-dimensional virtual world program. Data were analyzed with Student's t test and chi-square analysis, with P < 0.05 considered significant. A total of 18 patients were studied, with 12 completing both study wound procedures and 6 completing a single wound procedure. The amount of opioid administered before each of the 2 wound procedures was similar with and without IVR. Total opioid administration during the dressing procedures with IVR was significantly less than when no IVR was used, 17.9 ± 6.0 and 29.2 ± 4.5 mcg/kg fentanyl, respectively (t = -2.7; df = 14; P = 0.02). Two of 15 patients (11%) requested more than 1 opioid rescue dose with IVR and 9 of 15 patients (60%) requested more than 1 rescue dose without IVR. Seventy-five percentage of participants stated that they would want to use IVR with future dressing changes. Pain and anxiety scores were similar for the wound procedures with and without IVR (P > 0.05). IVR significantly reduced the amount of opioid medication administered during painful wound care procedures when IVR was used compared with no IVR. Since pain scores were similar before and after the wound procedures with IVR and without IVR, the 39% reduction in opioid medication during IVR supports its use as a pain distraction therapy during painful procedures.

Are there risk factors for musculoskeletal procedural pain? A national prospective multicentre study of procedural instantaneous pain and its recall after knee and spine injections

Sedation or anesthesia is used to facilitate many cases of an estimated 45 million diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures in the United States. Preclinical studies have called attention to the possibility that sedative-hypnotic drugs can increase pain perception, but whether this observation holds true in humans and whether pain-modulating effects are agent-specific or characteristic of IV sedation in general remain unclear. To study this important clinical question, the authors recruited 86 healthy volunteers and randomly assigned them to receive one of three sedative drugs: midazolam, propofol, or dexmedetomidine. The authors asked participants to rate their pain in response to four experimental pain tasks (i.e., cold, heat, ischemic, or electrical pain) before and during moderate sedation. Midazolam increased cold, heat, and electrical pain perception significantly (10-point pain rating scale change, 0.82 ± 0.29, mean ± SEM). Propofol reduced ischemic pain and dexmedetomidine reduced both cold and ischemic pain significantly (-1.58 ± 0.28, mean ± SEM). The authors observed a gender-by-race interaction for dexmedetomidine. In addition to these drug-specific effects, the authors observed gender effects on pain perception; female subjects rated identical experimental pain stimuli higher than male subjects. The authors also noted race-drug interaction effects for dexmedetomidine, with higher doses of drug needed to sedate Caucasians compared with African Americans. The results of the authors' study call attention to the fact that IV sedatives may increase pain perception. The effect of sedation on pain perception is agent- and pain type-specific. Knowledge of these effects provides a rational basis for analgesia and sedation to facilitate medical procedures.

How Often Do Hospitalized Children Receive Nonpharmacological Interventions During Painful and Stressful Procedures?