Sensory training system for use at home by people with complex regional pain syndrome in England: protocol for a proof-of-concept study.

INTRODUCTION: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a disabling and distressing chronic pain condition characterised by a range of sensory, motor, autonomic and trophic symptoms. UK guidelines recommend therapy interventions to help normalise touch perception through self-administered tactile and thermal desensitisation activities. Interventions have been developed, aiming to help individuals broaden their sensory experience, thereby relieving chronic pain. However, therapy-led interventions often experience practical constraints and poor adherence. In response, a sensory training system (STS) device has been designed for unsupervised independent home-use. METHODS: This proof-of-concept study aims to explore whether people with CRPS use the device at home for 30 minutes a day for 30 days. Secondary aims are to determine whether the STS device will change tactile acuity and perceived levels of pain intensity, pain interference, sensitivity or feelings towards the affected limb. We will seek to recruit 20 eligible participants. Participants will be asked to measure tactile acuity using a two-point discrimination assessment, complete an online questionnaire before and after use of the device and complete a daily diary. On completion of the 30-day use, participants will be invited to take part in a semi-structured interview to explore their experiences of using the device. ANALYSIS: Pain intensity and pain interference will be scored using the online Assessment Center Scoring Service or using the look-up table in the PROMIS scoring manual. The remaining questionnaire data, including tactile acuity results, and device-use data, including frequency and duration of use, will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data will be thematically analysed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: London-Stanmore Research Ethics Committee provided a favourable opinion on 19 April 2021 (ref 21/LO/0200). The NHS Health Research Authority, UK, approved this study on 7 June 2021. Dissemination will include peer-reviewed publications, presentations at conferences, social media and reports to the funder and patient charities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN89099843.

The Use of Remote Programming for Spinal Cord Stimulation for Patients With Chronic Pain During the COVID-19 Outbreak in China.

OBJECTIVES: Due to the impact of COVID-19 epidemic, face-to-face follow-up treatments for patients with chronic pain and implanted spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices are forced to be delayed or stopped. This has led to more follow ups being done remotely. Meanwhile, with the development of 4G/5G networks, smartphones, and novel devices, remote programming has become possible. Here, we investigated the demand and utility of remote follow-ups including remote programming for SCS for patients with chronic pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire including questions on demographic characteristics, pain history, postimplantation life quality, standard follow-up experience, remote follow-up, and remote programming experience was sent to patients diagnosed as chronic intractable pain and treated with SCS during January 2019 to January 2020. RESULTS: A total of 64 participants completed the questionnaire. About 70% of participants expressed demands for remote follow-ups due to the inconvenience, high costs, and time consumption of traditional follow-up visits. Nearly 97% of participants have attempted remote follow-ups, and about 81% of participants have further tried remote programming. Approximately, 96% of them recognized the benefits. CONCLUSIONS: The remote programming was in high demand among participants. Most of the participants have tried remote follow-ups or even remote programming. The remote programming appeared to be more efficient, economic and were widely recognized among participants.

Slow versus fast subcutaneous heparin injections for prevention of bruising and site pain intensity.

BACKGROUND: Heparin is an anticoagulant medication that is usually injected subcutaneously. Subcutaneous administration of heparin may result in complications such as bruising, haematoma, and pain at the injection site. One of the factors that may affect pain, haematoma, and bruising is injection speed. Several studies have been carried out to determine if speed of injection affects the amount of pain and bruising where the injection is given; however, the results of these studies have differed, and study authors have not reached a clear final conclusion. This is the second update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of duration (speed) of subcutaneous heparin injection on pain and bruising at the injection site in people admitted to hospitals or clinics who require treatment with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). We also looked at haematoma at the injection site. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 June 2020. We undertook reference checking of included studies to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of different durations of subcutaneous injection of heparin on pain, bruising, and haematoma at the injection site. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data via Covidence software and assessed methodological quality using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes of interest were pain intensity at injection site and size and incidence of bruising. The secondary outcomes of interest were size and incidence of haematoma at injection site. We calculated the odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one new study for this update, resulting in a total of five included studies with 503 participants who received subcutaneous injections of LMWH into the abdomen. Given the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind participants and caregivers (personnel) in any of the included studies. Two studies described blinding of outcome assessors. Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was moderate. The duration of the fast injection was 10 seconds, and the duration of the slow injection was 30 seconds in all included studies. Four studies reported site pain intensity after each injection at different time points. Two studies assessed site pain intensity immediately after each injection; meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference in site pain intensity immediately after slow injection when compared to fast injection (MD -1.52, 95% CI -3.56 to 0.53; 140 participants; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of three studies indicated that site pain intensity may be slightly reduced 48 hours after the slow heparin injection compared to fast injection (MD -1.60, 95% CI -2.69 to -0.51; 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Five studies assessed bruise size at 48 hours, and two studies assessed bruise size at 60 hours. Meta-analysis showed there may be a reduction in bruise size 48 hours (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.02; 503 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and 60 hours (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.06; 84 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) after slow injection compared to fast injection. There was no evidence of a difference in bruise size 72 hours after slow injection compared to fast injection (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.06; 140 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Three studies evaluated incidence of bruising and showed there may be a reduction in bruise incidence 48 hours (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.60; 444 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 60 hours (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.65; 84 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) after slow injection compared to fast injection. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to risk of bias concerns, imprecision, and inconsistency. None of the included studies measured size or incidence of haematoma. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Administering medication safely and enhancing patient comfort are the main aims of clinical nurses. In this review, we identified five RCTs that evaluated the effect of subcutaneous heparin injection duration on pain intensity, bruise size and incidence. We found that pain may be slightly reduced 48 hours after slow injection. Similarly, there may be a reduction in bruise size and incidence after slow injection compared to fast injection 48 and 60 hours postinjection. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low or very low due to risk of bias concerns, imprecision, and inconsistency. Accordingly, new trials with a more robust design, more participants, and a focus on different injection speeds will be useful in strengthening the certainty of the available evidence.

Consensus for the management of analgesia, sedation and delirium in adults with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. / Consenso para el manejo de la analgesia, sedación y delirium en adultos con síndrome de distrés respiratorio agudo por COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To propose agile strategies for a comprehensive approach to analgesia, sedation, delirium, early mobility and family engagement for patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome, considering the high risk of infection among health workers, the humanitarian treatment that we must provide to patients and the inclusion of patients' families, in a context lacking specific therapeutic strategies against the virus globally available to date and a potential lack of health resources. METHODS: A nonsystematic review of the scientific evidence in the main bibliographic databases was carried out, together with national and international clinical experience and judgment. Finally, a consensus of recommendations was made among the members of the Committee for Analgesia, Sedation and Delirium of the Sociedad Argentina de Terapia Intensiva. RESULTS: Recommendations were agreed upon, and tools were developed to ensure a comprehensive approach to analgesia, sedation, delirium, early mobility and family engagement for adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19. DISCUSSION: Given the new order generated in intensive therapies due to the advancing COVID-19 pandemic, we propose to not leave aside the usual good practices but to adapt them to the particular context generated. Our consensus is supported by scientific evidence and national and international experience and will be an attractive consultation tool in intensive therapies.

OBJETIVO: Proponer estrategias agile para este abordaje integral de la analgesia, sedación, delirium, implementación de movilidad temprana e inclusión familiar del paciente con síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda por COVID-19, considerando el alto riesgo de infección que existe entre los trabajadores de salud, el tratamiento humanitario que debemos brindar al paciente y su familia, en un contexto de falta estrategias terapéuticas específicas contra el virus globalmente disponibles a la fecha y una potencial falta de recursos sanitarios. METODOS: Se llevó a cabo una revision no sistemática de la evidencia científica en las principales bases de datos bibliográficos, sumada a la experiencia y juicio clínico nacional e internacional. Finalmente, se realizó un consenso de recomendaciones entre los integrantes del Comité de Analgesia, Sedación y Delirium de la Sociedad Argentina de Terapia Intensiva. RESULTADOS: Se acordaron recomendaciones y se desarrollaron herramientas para asegurar un abordaje integral de analgesia, sedación, delirium, implementación de movilidad temprana e inclusión familiar del paciente adulto con síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda por COVID-19. DISCUSIÓN: Ante el nuevo orden generado en las terapias intensivas por la progresión de la pandemia de COVID-19, proponemos no dejar atrás las buenas prácticas habituales, sino adaptarlas al contexto particular generado. Nuestro consenso está respaldado en la evidencia científica, la experiencia nacional e internacional, y será una herramienta de consulta atractiva en las terapias intensivas.

Is the heart rate variability monitoring using the analgesia nociception index a predictor of illness severity and mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19? A pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: The analysis of heart rate variability (HRV) has proven to be an important tool for the management of autonomous nerve system in both surgical and critically ill patients. We conducted this study to show the different spectral frequency and time domain parameters of HRV as a prospective predictor for critically ill patients, and in particular for COVID-19 patients who are on mechanical ventilation. The hypothesis is that most severely ill COVID-19 patients have a depletion of the sympathetic nervous system and a predominance of parasympathetic activity reflecting the remaining compensatory anti-inflammatory response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-center, prospective, observational pilot study which included COVID-19 patients admitted to the Surgical Intensive Care Unit was conducted. The normalized high-frequency component (HFnu), i.e. ANIm, and the standard deviation of RR intervals (SDNN), i.e. Energy, were recorded using the analgesia nociception index monitor (ANI). To estimate the severity and mortality we used the SOFA score and the date of discharge or date of death. RESULTS: A total of fourteen patients were finally included in the study. ANIm were higher in the non-survivor group (p = 0.003) and were correlated with higher IL-6 levels (p = 0.020). Energy was inversely correlated with SOFA (p = 0.039) and fewer survival days (p = 0.046). A limit value at 80 of ANIm, predicted mortalities with a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 85.7%. In the case of Energy, a limit value of 0.41 ms predicted mortality with all predictive values of 71.4%. CONCLUSION: A low autonomic nervous system activity, i.e. low SDNN or Energy, and a predominance of the parasympathetic system, i.e. low HFnu or ANIm, due to the sympathetic depletion in COVID-19 patients are associated with a worse prognosis, higher mortality, and higher IL-6 levels.

Pain Manifestations of COVID-19 and Their Association With Mortality: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence and breakdown of pain symptoms among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection admitted for nonpain symptoms and the association between the presence of pain and intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter prospective study, data on the intensity and type of pain were collected on 169 patients with active severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection at 2 teaching hospitals in the United States and Korea and on 8 patients with acute pain at another large teaching hospital between February 1, 2020, and June 15, 2020. RESULTS: Sixty-five of 169 patients (38.5%) reported an active pain condition. Among the 73 patients with pain, the most common pain symptoms were headache (n=22; 30.1%), chest pain (n=17; 23.3%), spinal pain (n=18; 24.7%), myalgia (n=13; 17.8%), abdominal or pelvic pain (n=13; 17.8%), arthralgia (n=11; 15.1%), and generalized pain (n=9; 12.3%). Those reporting headache as their main symptom were less likely to require ICU admission (P=.003). Acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were prescribed to 80.8% (n=59), opioids to 17.8% (n=13), adjuvants to 8.2% (n=6), and ketamine to 5.5% (n=4) of patients with pain. When age 65 years and older and sex were controlled for in multivariable analysis, the absence of pain was associated with ICU admission (odds ratio, 2.92; 95% CI, 1.42 to 6.28; P=.004) and death (odds ratio, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.40 to 9.76; P=.01). CONCLUSION: Acute pain is common during active COVID-19 infection with the most common manifestations being headache, chest pain and spine pain. Individuals without pain were more likely to require intensive care and expire than those with pain. Reasons why pain may be associated with reduced mortality include that an intense systemic stimulus (eg, respiratory distress) might distract pain perception or that the catecholamine surge associated with severe respiratory distress might attenuate nociceptive signaling.

Pain Treatment Evaluation in COVID-19 Patients with Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Multicriteria Decision-Making.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has emerged as a worldwide pandemic since March 2020. Although most patients complain of moderate or severe pain, these symptoms are generally underestimated and appropriate treatment is not applied. This study aims to guide physicians in selecting and ranking various alternatives for the treatment of pain in COVID-19 patients. However, the choice of treatment for pain requires the consideration of many different conflicting criteria. Therefore, we have studied this problem as a multicriteria decision-making problem. Throughout the solution procedure, first, the criteria and subcriteria affecting the preferences are defined. Then, weight values are determined with respect to these criteria, as they have different degrees of importance for the problem. At this stage, hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets (HFLTSs) are used, and thus, experts can convey their ideas more accurately. In this first phase of the study, an HFLTS integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method is utilized. Subsequently, possible treatment alternatives are evaluated by using the Vise Kriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) method. According to the results obtained by considering expert evaluations, the most preferred treatment is the administration of paracetamol, followed by interventional treatments, opioids, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), respectively. With this study, it is ensured that a more accurate method is followed by eliminating possible mistakes due to the subjective evaluations of experts in the process of determining pain treatment. This method can also be used in different patient and disease groups.

Polymethylmetacrylate Cement Augmentation of the Coccyx (Coccygeoplasty) for Fracture: A Case Report

Background: Coccydynia is a painful condition of the sacrococcygeal region, with symptoms associated with sitting and rising from a seated position. It is frequently related to trauma and idiopathic causes, and the pain is mostly chronic. Percutaneous vertebroplasty and sacroplasty are the methods that are widely used for treating compression fractures and sacral insufficiency fractures, respectively. However, the success of polymethylmethacrylate injection in the treatment of osteoporotic coccyx fractures and coccydynia is still unknown. Case Report: A 68-year-old man was admitted to our clinic with complaints of pain in the sacrococcygeal and perianal regions. In the imaging studies, a fracture line in the fifth sacral and first coccygeal segments was observed as evidenced by a bony edema. Since the patient's pain did not improve with conservative methods, we treated him with coccygeoplasty. No complication was encountered. The day after the operation, he was discharged from the hospital with complete pain relief. The patient confirmed having no pain on the third postoperative month and so did not need any analgesics. Conclusion: Coccyceoplasty may be a good treatment option for retractable pain in patients with acute or subacute osteoporotic coccygeal fractures and coccydinia with edema.