Calibration trial of an innovative medical device (NEVVA© ) for the evaluation of pain in non-communicating patients in the intensive care unit.

Background: Pain management is an essential and complex issue for non-communicative patients undergoing sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU). The Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), although not perfect for assessing behavioral pain, is the gold standard based partly on clinical facial expression. NEVVA© , an automatic pain assessment tool based on facial expressions in critically ill patients, is a much-needed innovative medical device. Methods: In this prospective pilot study, we recorded the facial expressions of critically ill patients in the medical ICU of Caen University Hospital using the iPhone and Smart Motion Tracking System (SMTS) software with the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) to measure human facial expressions metrically during sedation weaning. Analyses were recorded continuously, and BPS scores were collected hourly over two 8 h periods per day for 3 consecutive days. For this first stage, calibration of the innovative NEVVA© medical device algorithm was obtained by comparison with the reference pain scale (BPS). Results: Thirty participants were enrolled between March and July 2022. To assess the acute severity of illness, the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) were recorded on ICU admission and were 9 and 47, respectively. All participants had deep sedation, assessed by a Richmond Agitation and Sedation scale (RASS) score of less than or equal to -4 at the time of inclusion. One thousand and six BPS recordings were obtained, and 130 recordings were retained for final calibration: 108 BPS recordings corresponding to the absence of pain and 22 BPS recordings corresponding to the presence of pain. Due to the small size of the dataset, a leave-one-subject-out cross-validation (LOSO-CV) strategy was performed, and the training results obtained the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.792. This model has a sensitivity of 81.8% and a specificity of 72.2%. Conclusion: This pilot study calibrated the NEVVA© medical device and showed the feasibility of continuous facial expression analysis for pain monitoring in ICU patients. The next step will be to correlate this device with the BPS scale.

Behavioral pain scale may not be reliable in awake non-verbal intensive care patients: a case control study.

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of pain in patients, unable of oral communication, often relies on behavioral assessment. However, some critically ill patients, while non-verbal, are awake and have some potential for self-reporting. The objective was to compare the results of a behavioral pain assessment with self-reporting in awake, non-verbal, critically ill patients unable to use low-tech augmentative and alternative communication tools. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of intubated or tracheotomized adult, ventilated patients with a RASS (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale) of -1 to + 1 and inadequate non-verbal communication skills in a surgical intensive care unit of a tertiary care university hospital. For pain assessment, the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) was used. Self-reporting of pain was achieved by using an eye tracking device to evaluate the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and the pain/discomfort item of the EuroQol EQ-5D-5 L (EQ-Pain). All measurements were taken at rest. RESULTS: Data was collected from 75 patients. Neither the NRS nor the EQ-Pain (r < .15) correlated with the BPS. However, NRS and EQ-Pain were significantly correlated (r = .78, p = < 0.001), indicating the reliability of the self-reporting by these patients. Neither the duration of intubation/tracheostomy, nor cause for ICU treatment, nor BPS subcategories had an influence on these results. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral pain assessment tools in non-verbal patients who are awake and not in delirium appear unreliable in estimating pain during rest. Before a behavioral assessment tool such as the BPS is used, the application of high-tech AACs should be strongly considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, Registration number: DRKS00021233. Registered 23 April 2020 - Retrospectively registered, https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00021233 .

Implantação de avaliação da dor em pacientes sedados sob ventilação mecânica em unidade de terapia intensiva / Implementation of pain assessment in sedated patients under mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit

A dor é uma experiência subjetiva variando na sua forma e intensidade de pessoa para pessoa, que vem, ao longo dos anos, sendo um elemento subnotificado, não avaliado e subtratado na Unidade de Terapia Intensiva (UTI), principalmente, pelos pacientes estarem sedados. Dessa maneira, observa-se também a existência de várias escalas padronizadas, amplamente divulgadas e utilizadas para analisar prováveis sintomas de dor expressadas pela população sob efeito de sedativos e dependentes de ventilação mecânica em UTIs. O estudo foi desenvolvido junto a dois grupos de participantes: o primeiro grupo foi constituído pelos enfermeiros envolvidos na assistência direta ao paciente na unidade investigada, em todos os turnos de trabalho, com tempo de trabalho na unidade superior a três meses, que aceitarem participar da pesquisa e que se encontravam em atividade laboral no período de coleta de dados e o segundo grupo foi composto por pacientes internados que foram avaliados pelo instrumento proposto, durante o período de internação na UTI selecionada. Foram elegíveis os pacientes com idade superior a 18 anos, de ambos os sexos, que estavam sedados e inconscientes e sob ventilação mecânica, impossibilitados de verbalizar a percepção de dor, mediante consentimento de participação fornecido por responsável legal. A coleta de dados foi realizada no período de fevereiro a abril de 2023. Utilizou-se a Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) , um instrumento observacional de avaliação da dor, composto por três domínios comportamentais: expressão facial, movimentos de membros superiores e conformidade com o ventilador mecânico. A amostra pesquisada, composta em sua maioria de profissionais do sexo do feminino (85%), com predominância na faixa etária de 36 a 40 (30%) e mesmo percentual acima de 45 anos. A idade média dos enfermeiros foi de 42,5 anos, com mediana de 39,5 anos. Observa-se ainda que houve discrepâncias nas avaliações em relação aos valores obtidos pelos enfermeiros, quando comparados com o enfermeiro padrão ouro da pesquisa, em alguns momentos de observação dos pacientes, o que indica a necessidade de ampliar as oportunidades de avaliação com objetivo de capacitar os enfermeiros para uso mais sistemático deste instrumento. O instrumento BPS mostrou-se de boa compreensão e utilização pelos enfermeiros participantes deste estudo, o que indica sua utilização dentro de uma boa perspectiva pelos profissionais atuantes em unidades de terapia intensiva. Deve-se destacar a relevância desta pesquisa, em razão de poucos estudos na literatura brasileira, quanto a utilização desta ferramenta pelos enfermeiros intensivistas, na direção de um cuidado de excelência aos pacientes críticos

Pain is a subjective experience varying in its form and intensity from person to person, which has, over the years, been an underreported, unassisted and undertreated element in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), mainly because patients are sedated. Thus, it is also observed the existence of several standardized scales, widely disseminated and used to analyze probable pain symptoms expressed by the population under the effect of sedatives and dependent on mechanical ventilation in ICUs. This study aimed to describe the process of implantation of a validated instrument for pain assessment of sedated and unconscious patients under mechanical ventilation in an ICU. This is a cross-sectional and descriptive study, with a quantitative and qualitative approach. This investigation was carried out in the Intensive Care Center of a public hospital located in the municipality of Belém, Pará State, which meets the demand referred by the basic, outpatient and hospital network, allocating 100% of its installed capacity to SUS patients. The study was developed with two groups of participants: the first group consisted of nurses involved in direct patient care in the unit investigated, in all work shifts, with more than three months of work in the unit, who agreed to participate in the research and who were in work activity during the data collection period and the second group was composed of hospitalized patients who were evaluated by the proposed instrument, during the period of hospitalization in the selected ICU. Patients older than 18 years, of both sexes, who were sedated and unconscious and under mechanical ventilation, unable to verbalize the perception of pain, were eligible, with the consent of participation provided by a legal guardian. Data collection was conducted from February to April 2023. The Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) was used, an observational pain assessment instrument composed of three behavioral domains: facial expression, upper limb movements and compliance with the mechanical ventilator. The sample surveyed, composed mostly of female professionals (85%), with predominance in the age group of 36 to 40 (30%) and the same percentage over 45 years. The mean age of the nurses was 42.5 years, with a median of 39.5 years. It is also observed that there were discrepancies in the evaluations in relation to the values obtained by the nurses, when compared with the nurse gold standard of the research, in some moments of observation of the patients, which indicates the need to expand the opportunities for evaluation in order to train the nurses for more systematic use of this instrument. The BPS instrument was shown to be well understood and used by the nurses participating in this study, which indicates its use from a good perspective by professionals working in intensive care units. The relevance of this research should be highlighted, due to few studies in the Brazilian literature, regarding the use of this tool by intensive care nurses, in the direction of excellent care for critically ill patients

Impact of a sensory stimulation program conducted by family members on the consciousness and pain levels of ICU patients: A mixed method study.

Background: The results of several studies show the different effects of a balanced sensory stimulation program (SSP) on patients with brain injury admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), but these effects have been less studied based on mixed and comprehensive methods. Method: This mixed-method study involved 66 patients with brain injury admitted to the ICU who were allocated into intervention (n = 33) and control (n = 33) groups using random stratified sampling. Patients in the intervention group received a sensory stimulation program from family members for 1 h daily during ICU hospitalization, while the control group received only routine care. Patients' level of consciousness and pain intensity were measured immediately before and after the intervention using Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), respectively. In-depth unstructured interviews were conducted with the patients in the intervention group 3 months after discharge from the ICU. These interviews were analyzed following Graneheim and Lundman (2004) conventional content analysis method. Results: A significant difference was found between the study groups in terms of the mean difference of GCS (P =0.001) and BPS score (P = 0.001) before and after intervention. Patients in the intervention group had a higher mean GCS and a lower mean BPS than did patients in the control group. The main themes extracted from the qualitative analysis confirmed the results obtained from the quantitative phase of the study. Conclusion: The combination of the quantitative and qualitative findings suggested that amidst the many hardships and sufferings brain injury patients go through in the ICU, a sensory stimulation program offered by family members may have many benefits such as increased level of consciousness and reduced pain for these patients. Therefore, it is necessary to formulate a framework for this program and provide the needed facilities in order to benefit more from the capacity of such programs for ICU patients.

[Potential effect of the stimulus threshold level of the nociceptive flexion reflex (NFRT) on mortality and delirium incidence in the critically ill patient: a retrospective cohort analysis]. / Potenzieller Einfluss der Reizschwellenhöhe des nozizeptiven Flexorenreflex (NFRT) auf die Mortalitäts- und Delirinzidenz beim kritisch kranken Patienten: eine retrospektive Kohortenanalyse.

BACKGROUND: Mortality and delirium in critically ill patients are affected by the provided analgesics and sedatives. The deeper the sedation and the higher the dose of analgesics applied, the more difficult it is to assess pain and the depth of sedation. Therefore, instrumental measurement methods, such as the measurement of the stimulus threshold of the nociceptive flexion reflex (NFRT), are becoming increasingly more important. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study is to investigate a potential association between the level of the nociceptive flexion reflex, mortality, and the occurrence of delirium. MATERIAL AND METHODS: By retrospectively analyzing a pilot data set of 57 ICU patients from the interdisciplinary surgical ICU of Ulm University Hospital surveyed between 11/2018 and 03/2020, a possible association between the NFRT, mortality, and the occurrence of delirium was calculated in an adjusted logistic regression model. Depending on the cut-off value, the stimulus threshold corridors result in the following comparison pairs: < 20 mA vs. 20-40 mA/20-50 mA/20-60 mA, > 40 mA vs. 20-40 mA, > 50 mA vs. 20-50 mA and > 60 mA vs. 20-60 mA. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) adjusted for age, sex, height, TISS-28, SAPS II, RASS, BPS, and applied analgesics. Pain assessment was performed, in addition to the Behavioral Pain scale, ≥ 3 times daily by measuring NFRT. RESULTS: A statistically nonsignificant tendency for an increase in mortality incidence occurred with an NFRT > 50 mA, versus a stimulus threshold corridor of 20-50 mA (OR 3.3, CI: 0.89-12.43, p = 0.07). A trend toward a reduction in delirium incidence occurred at an NFRT < 20 mA, versus a stimulus threshold corridor of 20-40 mA (OR 0.40, CI: 0.18-0.92, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Based on the level of the NFRT, no recommendation can be made at this point to adjust the analgesic regimen of critically ill patients, who are unable to communicate. The observation of a tendency towards an increase in mortality at high stimulus thresholds or a reduction in the occurrence of delirium at low stimulus thresholds of the NFRT must be verified in standardized studies.

Diagnostic Values of the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool and the Behavioral Pain Scale for Pain Assessment among Unconscious Patients: A Comparative Study.

Background: Pain assessment in unconscious patients is a major challenge for healthcare providers. This study aims to compare the diagnostic value of the critical-care pain observation tool (CPOT) and the behavioral pain scale (BPS) for pain assessment among unconscious patients. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2019. Forty-five unconscious patients were selected randomly from four general intensive care units (ICUs) in the north of Iran. The discriminant validity of CPOT and BPS were evaluated for pain during a nociceptive and a nonnociceptive procedure. For reliability assessment, interrater agreement was obtained using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient and weighted kappa coefficient. Results: Patients who had been hospitalized in ICU due to surgery or trauma (57.70%) or medical problems (42.30%) were studied. During the nociceptive procedure, the mean scores of CPOT and BPS and all their dimensions, except for the compliance with ventilator dimension, were significantly greater than the nonnociceptive procedure (p <0.05) although the effect size of both instruments was small (0.32 vs 0.18). The Lin's concordance correlation coefficient in nonnociceptive and nociceptive procedures was respectively 0.67 and 0.62 for CPOT and 0.74 and 0.88 for BPS. Conclusion: CPOT and BPS have acceptable discriminant validity in differentiating nonnociceptive and nociceptive procedural pain although the effect size of CPOT is larger than that of BPS. Although both instruments have low reliability, the reliability of BPS is better. How to cite this article: Nazari R, Froelicher ES, Nia HS, Hajihosseini F, Mousazadeh N. Diagnostic Values of the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool and the Behavioral Pain Scale for Pain Assessment among Unconscious Patients: A Comparative Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(4):472-476.

Pain Assessment in Intensive Care Unit: A Forgotten Entity or a Quality Indicator?

How to cite this article: Havaldar AA. Pain Assessment in Intensive Care Unit: A Forgotten Entity or a Quality Indicator? Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(4):419-420.

Measurement of the nociceptive flexion reflex threshold in critically ill patients - a randomized observational pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Pain detection and treatment is a major challenge in the care of critically ill patients, rendered more complex by the need to take into consideration the risk of insufficient or excessive analgesia. The nociceptive flexion reflex threshold (NFRT) has become the established basis for measuring the level of analgesia in the perioperative context. However, it remains unclear whether NFRT measurement can be usefully applied to mechanically ventilated, analgosedated critically ill patients who are unable to communicate. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate whether there is an association between the NFRT measurement and the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) in critically ill, analgosedated, and mechanically ventilated patients and whether the NFRT measurement can also detect potential excessive analgesia. METHODS: This prospective, observational, randomized single-center pilot study included patients admitted to the surgical Intensive Care Unit of University Hospital Ulm, Germany, all of whom were analgosedated and intubated. Major exclusion criteria were defined as the need for the administration of neuromuscular blocking agents or neurological diseases associated with peripheral nerve conduction restriction. Initial NFRT and BPS measurements were conducted within 12 h after admission. A structured pain assessment was performed at least twice daily until extubation throughout the observation period thereafter (Group A: BPS + NFRT, Group B: BPS). RESULTS: 114 patients were included in the study. NFRT is associated negatively with BPS. NFRT was almost twice as high in patients with a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) score of -5 than in patients with a RASS score ≥ -4 (RASS -5 - NFRT: 59.40 vs. RASS -4 - NFRT: 29.00, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: NFRT measurement is associated negatively with the BPS in critically ill patients. NFRT measurement provides guidance for the evaluation of nociceptive processes in patients with RASS scores ≤ -4, in whom analgesia level is often difficult to assess. However, in order to identify excessive analgesia and derive therapeutic consequences, it is necessary to gradually decrease analgesics and sedatives until a stimulus threshold is reached at which the patient does not feel pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials Register, registration number DRKS00021149, date of registration: March 26, 2020. https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00021149 .

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) in ICU Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The critical care pain observation tool (CPOT) has been widely used to assess pain in ICU patients, and its validity and reliability have been tested in various contexts. OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the CPOT in critically ill patients, a systematic review of diagnostic studies was performed. METHODS: A database search (PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, ProQuest, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, COVIP, CBM) was conducted, as was the manual identification of eligible papers from citations. Eligible studies were published between 2006 and February 2020. Quality appraisal of the studies was carried out with the QUADAS-2 checklist, and data extraction was performed in alignment with STARD 2015. Open Meta Analyst was used for the statistical analysis. RESULTS: In total, 25 articles involving 1920 subjects with 3493 experimental results were included. Most of the studies were of fair quality. A high degree of heterogeneity (I2 = 57.2%, P < 0.001) was discovered. The Youden index values were 1.56 and 1.55 when the CPOT threshold was set at two and three, respectively. The diagnostic performance of the CPOT was affected by the reference standard. The CPOT had a higher diagnostic odds ratio of 11.52 (95% CI: 7.42-17.87) during nociceptive procedures compared with 9.14 (95% CI: 5.38-15.53) at rest or during non-nociceptive procedures. CONCLUSION: CPOT has moderate diagnostic parameters with a threshold of two or three, suggesting that it is a fair but not excellent tool. More research on the validity of the CPOT in specific subgroups is needed to broaden its applicability in critical care.

Comparison of Self-Reported and Behavioral Pain Assessment Tools in Critically Ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: Self-reported and behavioral pain assessment scales are often used interchangeably in critically ill patients due to fluctuations in mental status. The correlation between scales is not well elucidated. The purpose of this study was to describe the correlation between self-reported and behavioral pain scores in critically ill patients. METHODS: Pain was assessed using behavioral and self-reported pain assessment tools. Behavioral pain tools included Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) and Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS). Self-reported pain tools included Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Wong-Baker Faces Pain Scales. Delirium was assessed using the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit. Patient preference regarding pain assessment method was queried. Correlation between scores was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 115 patients were included: 67 patients were nondelirious and 48 patients were delirious. The overall correlation between self-reported (NRS) and behavioral (CPOT) pain scales was poor (0.30, P = .018). In patients without delirium, a strong correlation was found between the 2 behavioral pain scales (0.94, P < .0001) and 2 self-reported pain scales (0.77, P < .0001). Self-reported pain scale (NRS) and behavioral pain scale (CPOT) were poorly correlated with each other (0.28, P = .021). In patients with delirium, there was a strong correlation between behavioral pain scales (0.86, P < .0001) and a moderate correlation between self-reported pain scales (0.69, P < .0001). There was no apparent correlation between self-reported (NRS) and behavioral pain scales (CPOT) in patients with delirium (0.23, P = .12). Most participants preferred self-reported pain assessment. CONCLUSION: Self-reported pain scales and behavioral pain scales cannot be used interchangeably. Current validated behavioral pain scales may not accurately reflect self-reported pain in critically ill patients.

Behavioral Pain Scale e Critical Care Pain Observation Tool para avaliação da dor em pacientes graves intubados orotraquealmente. Revisão sistemática da literatura / Behavioral Pain Scale and Critical Care Pain Observation Tool for pain evaluation in orotracheally tubed critical patients. A systematic review of the literature

RESUMO Objetivo: Descrever a adequação de duas escalas comportamentais, a Behavioral Pain Scale e a Critical Care Pain Observation Tool, para a avaliação da dor em pacientes intubados orotraquealmente, internados em unidades de terapia intensiva. Método: Utilizando a metodologia recomendada pelo Centro Cochrane, foi realizada revisão sistemática da literatura, na base de dados eletrônica EBSCO host (CINAHL Complete, MEDLINE®Complete, Nursing & Allied Health Collection: Comprehensive, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Methodology Register, Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, MedicLatina). Foram realizadas duas pesquisas com os seguintes termos em inglês no campo de pesquisa: "behavioral pain scale" AND "critical care pain observation tool" AND "behavioral pain scale" OR "critical care pain observation tool". Dois revisores independentes realizaram a avaliação crítica, a extração e a síntese dos dados. Resultados: Foram incluídos 15 estudos que evidenciaram que a Behavioral Pain Scale e a Critical Care Pain Observation Tool eram duas escalas válidas e confiáveis para a avaliação da dor em pacientes intubados orotraquealmente e internados em unidade de terapia intensiva. As escalas apresentaram propriedades psicométricas semelhantes, bem como boa confiabilidade. Conclusão: Ambas as escalas são adequadas para a avaliação da dor em pacientes intubados orotraquealmente, internados em unidade de terapia intensiva, contudo, apresentam limitações em populações específicas como doentes vítimas de trauma, queimados e do foro neurocirurgico. É sugerida a realização de mais estudos sobre o tema e em populações específicas.

ABSTRACT Objective: Descrever a adequação de duas escalas comportamentais, a Behavioral Pain Scale e a Critical Care Pain Observation Tool, para a avaliação da dor em pacientes intubados orotraquealmente, internados em unidades de terapia intensiva. Method: Utilizando a metodologia recomendada pelo Centro Cochrane, foi realizada revisão sistemática da literatura, na base de dados eletrônica EBSCO host (CINAHL Complete, MEDLINE®Complete, Nursing & Allied Health Collection: Comprehensive, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Methodology Register, Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, MedicLatina). Foram realizadas duas pesquisas com os seguintes termos em inglês no campo de pesquisa: "behavioral pain scale" AND "critical care pain observation tool" AND "behavioral pain scale" OR "critical care pain observation tool". Dois revisores independentes realizaram a avaliação crítica, a extração e a síntese dos dados. Results: Foram incluídos 15 estudos que evidenciaram que a Behavioral Pain Scale e a Critical Care Pain Observation Tool eram duas escalas válidas e confiáveis para a avaliação da dor em pacientes intubados orotraquealmente e internados em unidade de terapia intensiva. As escalas apresentaram propriedades psicométricas semelhantes, bem como boa confiabilidade. Conclusion: Ambas as escalas são adequadas para a avaliação da dor em pacientes intubados orotraquealmente, internados em unidade de terapia intensiva, contudo, apresentam limitações em populações específicas como doentes vítimas de trauma, queimados e do foro neurocirurgico. É sugerida a realização de mais estudos sobre o tema e em populações específicas.

Comparison of Two Pain Scales: Behavioral Pain Scale and Critical-care Pain Observation Tool During Invasive and Noninvasive Procedures in Intensive Care Unit-admitted Patients.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) frequently experience pain, but the severity of pain in this group of patients is underestimated by the treatment team due to barriers to verbal communication. The aim of the present study was comparing the severity of pain measured by two scales: behavioral pain scale (BPS) and critical-care pain observation tool (CPOT) in ICU-admitted patients during routine daily procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety patients were enrolled in the study. The severity of pain was measured during resting, invasive (suctioning) and noninvasive (mouthwash and body position change) procedures, and respiratory physiotherapy with two scales: BPS and CPOT. Wilcoxon and Friedman statistical tests were used to compare the score of pain in different situations, and Spearman correlation coefficient was also used to measure the correlation of pain score measured by two scales. RESULTS: Patients experienced no pain during resting, mild pain during changing position, and respiratory physiotherapy, mild-to-moderate pain during mouthwash and moderate pain during secretion suctioning. Wilcoxon test used for pairwise comparisons between pain score in different situations showed a significant difference in both scales (p < 0.05). There were positive and strong correlations (r > 0.80, p < 0.05) between the pain score measured by BPS and CPOT from ICU-admitted patients in all procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Critically ill patients in ICU experience a different range of pain in routine daily care. BPS and CPOT scales could be used successfully for monitoring of pain in this group of patients.

A Systematic Review of the Psychometric Properties of the Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS).

PROBLEM: Clinicians and researchers require a valid way to assess procedural pain experienced by infants and children. The Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS) has been used to assess immunisation pain. However, it is unknown whether it is valid for this purpose and whether use can be extended to other procedures. The aim of this study was to rigorously assess evidence addressing the psychometric properties of this scale and to provide recommendations for its use. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Psychometric evaluation studies reporting feasibility, reliability, validity, or utility data for the MBPS applied to children (birth to 18years) and randomised controlled trials (RCT) using the MBPS were included. SAMPLE: Twenty-eight studies (8 psychometric and 20 RCTs) were included. RESULTS: Studies were of varying quality. Sufficient data was available to cautiously accept the MBPS as valid for assessing immunisation related pain in infants aged 2 to 22months. There was insufficient data to support the psychometrics in other age groups or in circumstances other than immunisation. There is no data addressing the clinical utility of the MBPS. CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible at this time to confidently accept the MBPS as suitable for assessing all procedural pain in young children. IMPLICATIONS: Studies to evaluate the capacity of the MBPS to assess pain in a range of procedures and to distinguish between pain and non-pain related distress are needed if it is to be recommended.

The Psychometric Properties of the MBPS Scale Used to Assess Procedural Pain.

The Modified Behavioral Pain Scale (MBPS) was designed to assess procedural pain in infants and is considered valid for assessing immunization pain. The aim of this study was to assess the practical and psychometric properties of the MBPS when applied to other commonly performed procedures. Twenty-six clinicians independently applied the MBPS scale to segments of video collected from 100 infants and children aged 6 to 42 months undergoing 1 of 4 procedures in the emergency department. Positive correlation between MBPS and Visual Analogue Scale observer applied (VASobs) pain (r = .74) was shown and inter- and intrarater reliability coefficients were high (.87 and .89, respectively). Construct validity was shown by scale responsiveness to painful stimuli (4.6 times increase in scores across phases) and the capacity of the scale to distinguish between painful versus nonpainful procedures (P < .001). However, mean baseline scores for procedures were not 0 (likely a function of item descriptors for a "0" score) and the mean difference increased across phases for children with baseline scores >3, which was much lower than for children with scores <3 (P = .0001). Finally, 28% of scores changed after the second viewing of a video segment. The MBPS appears reliable and sensitive to procedural pain when applied by clinicians. Results question the capacity of the scale to differentiate between pain- and nonpain-related distress, the feasibility of this scale, and the appropriateness of item descriptors for medical procedures. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the psychometric and practical properties of the MBPS applied to assess procedural pain. Identification of a suitable scale for this purpose will support improved pain management in infants and young children who undergo painful procedures.

Pain Measurement in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury: Behavioral Pain Tools Versus Analgesia Nociception Index.

INTRODUCTION: Pain is highly prevalent in critically ill trauma patients, especially those with a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Behavioral pain tools such as the behavioral pain scale (BPS) and critical-care pain observation tool are recommended for sedated noncommunicative patients. Analysis of heart rate variability (HRV) is a noninvasive method to evaluate autonomic nervous system activity. The analgesia nociception index (ANI) device (Physiodoloris®, MDoloris Medical Systems, Loos, France) allows noninvasive HRV analysis. The ANI assesses the relative parasympathetic tone as a surrogate for antinociception/nociception balance in sedated patients. The primary aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of ANI in detecting pain in TBI patients. The secondary aim was to evaluate the impact of norepinephrine use on ANI effectiveness and to determine the correlation between ANI and BPS. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study in 21 deeply sedated TBI patients. Exclusion criteria were nonsinus cardiac rhythm; presence of pacemaker; atropine or isoprenaline treatment; neuromuscular blocking agents; and major cognitive impairment. Heart rate, blood pressure, and ANI were continuously recorded using the Physiodoloris® device at rest (T1), during (T2), and after the end (T3) of the painful stimulus (tracheal suctioning). RESULTS: In total, 100 observations were scored. ANI was significantly lower at T2 (Median [min - max] 54.5 [22-100]) compared with T1 (90.5 [50-100], P < 0.0001) and T3 (82 [36-100], P < 0.0001). Similar results were found in the subgroups of patients with (65 measurements) or without (35) norepinephrine. During procedure, a negative linear relationship was observed between ANI and BPS (r2 = -0.469, P < 0.001). At the threshold of 50, the sensitivity and specificity of ANI to detect patients with BPS ≥ 5 were 73% and 62%, respectively, with a negative predictive value of 86%. DISCUSSION: Our results suggest that ANI is effective in detecting pain in ventilated sedated TBI patients, including those patients treated with norepinephrine.

Pain Measurement in Mechanically Ventilated Patients After Cardiac Surgery: Comparison of the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT).

OBJECTIVES: The Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) are behavioral pain assessment tools for sedated and unconscious critically ill patients. The aim of this study was to compare the reliability, internal consistency, and discriminant validation of the BPS and the CPOT simultaneously in mechanically ventilated patients after cardiac surgery. DESIGN: A prospective, observational cohort study. SETTING: A 20-bed closed-format intensive care unit with mixed medical, surgical, and cardiac surgery patients in a teaching hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 72 consecutive intubated and mechanically ventilated patients after cardiac surgery who were not able to self-report pain. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two nurses assessed the BPS and CPOT simultaneously and independently at the following 4 moments: rest, a nonpainful procedure (oral care), rest, and a painful procedure (turning). Both scores showed a significant increase of 2 points between rest and turning. The median BPS score of nurse 1 showed a significant increase of 1 point between rest and the nonpainful procedure (oral care), whereas both median CPOT scores did not change. The interrater reliability of the BPS and CPOT showed fair-to-good agreement of 0.74 overall. During the periods of rest 1 and rest 2, values ranged from 0.24 to 0.46. Cronbach's alpha values for the BPS were 0.62 (nurse 1) and 0.59 (nurse 2) compared with 0.65 and 0.58, respectively, for the CPOT. CONCLUSIONS: The BPS and CPOT are reliable and valid pain assessment tools in a daily clinical setting. However, the discriminant validation of both scores seems less satisfactory in sedated or agitated patients and this topic requires further investigation.

Validation of the Brazilian version of Behavioral Pain Scale in adult sedated and mechanically ventilated patients / Validação da versão Brasileira da Escala Comportamental de Dor (Behavioral Pain Scale) em adultos sedados e sob ventilação mecânica

Abstract Background and objectives: The Behavioral Pain Scale is a pain assessment tool for uncommunicative and sedated Intensive Care Unit patients. The lack of a Brazilian scale for pain assessment in adults mechanically ventilated justifies the relevance of this study that aimed to validate the Brazilian version of Behavioral Pain Scale as well as to correlate its scores with the records of physiological parameters, sedation level and severity of disease. Methods: Twenty-five Intensive Care Unit adult patients were included in this study. The Brazilian Behavioral Pain Scale version (previously translated and culturally adapted) and the recording of physiological parameters were performed by two investigators simultaneously during rest, during eye cleaning (non-painful stimulus) and during endotracheal suctioning (painful stimulus). Results: High values of responsiveness coefficient (coefficient = 3.22) were observed. The Cronbach's alpha of total Behavioral Pain Scale score at eye cleaning and endotracheal suctioning was 0.8. The intraclass correlation coefficient of total Behavioral Pain Scale score was ≥ 0.8 at eye cleaning and endotracheal suctioning. There was a significant highest Behavioral Pain Scale score during application of painful procedure when compared with rest period (p ≤ 0.0001). However, no correlations were observed between pain and hemodynamic parameters, sedation level, and severity of disease. Conclusions: This pioneer validation study of Brazilian Behavioral Pain Scale exhibits satisfactory index of internal consistency, interrater reliability, responsiveness and validity. Therefore, the Brazilian Behavioral Pain Scale version was considered a valid instrument for being used in adult sedated and mechanically ventilated patients in Brazil.

Resumo Justificativa e objetivos: A Escala Comportamental de Dor (Behavioral Pain Scale) é uma ferramenta de avaliação da dor para pacientes não-comunicativos e sedados em unidade de tratamento intensivo (UTI). A falta de uma escala brasileira para a avaliação da dor em adultos sob ventilação mecânica justifica a relevância deste estudo que teve por objetivo validar a versão brasileira da Escala Comportamental de Dor (ECD), bem como correlacionar seus escores com os registros de parâmetros fisiológicos, nível de sedação e gravidade da doença. Métodos: Vinte e cinco pacientes adultos internados em UTI foram incluídos neste estudo. A versão brasileira da ECD (previamente traduzida e adaptada culturalmente) e os registros dos parâmetros fisiológicos foram realizados simultaneamente por dois avaliadores durante o repouso, durante a limpeza dos olhos (estímulo não doloroso) e durante a aspiração endotraqueal (estímulo doloroso). Resultados: Valores elevados do coeficiente de coeficiente de responsividade (coeficiente = 3,22) foram observados. O coeficiente alfa de Cronbach do escore total da ECD durante a limpeza dos olhos e aspiração endotraqueal foi de 0,8. O coeficiente de correlação intraclasse do escore total da ECD foi ≥ 0,8 durante a limpeza dos olhos e aspiração endotraqueal. Houve um escore significativamente mais alto na ECD durante a aplicação do estímulo doloroso em comparação com o período de descanso (p ≤ 0,0001). No entanto, não foram observadas correlações entre dor e parâmetros hemodinâmicos, nível de sedação e gravidade da doença. Conclusões: Este estudo pioneiro de validação da ECD brasileira apresenta índices satisfatórios de consistência interna, confiabilidade entre avaliadores, responsividade e validade. Portanto, a versão da ECD brasileira foi considerada um instrumento válido para ser usado em pacientes adultos sedados e ventilados mecanicamente no Brasil.

[Validation of the Brazilian version of Behavioral Pain Scale in adult sedated and mechanically ventilated patients]. / Validação da versão Brasileira da Escala Comportamental de Dor (Behavioral Pain Scale) em adultos sedados e sob ventilação mecânica.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Behavioral Pain Scale is a pain assessment tool for uncommunicative and sedated Intensive Care Unit patients. The lack of a Brazilian scale for pain assessment in adults mechanically ventilated justifies the relevance of this study that aimed to validate the Brazilian version of Behavioral Pain Scale as well as to correlate its scores with the records of physiological parameters, sedation level and severity of disease. METHODS: Twenty-five Intensive Care Unit adult patients were included in this study. The Brazilian Behavioral Pain Scale version (previously translated and culturally adapted) and the recording of physiological parameters were performed by two investigators simultaneously during rest, during eye cleaning (non-painful stimulus) and during endotracheal suctioning (painful stimulus). RESULTS: High values of responsiveness coefficient (coefficient=3.22) were observed. The Cronbach's alpha of total Behavioral Pain Scale score at eye cleaning and endotracheal suctioning was 0.8. The intraclass correlation coefficient of total Behavioral Pain Scale score was ≥ 0.8 at eye cleaning and endotracheal suctioning. There was a significant highest Behavioral Pain Scale score during application of painful procedure when compared with rest period (p≤0.0001). However, no correlations were observed between pain and hemodynamic parameters, sedation level, and severity of disease. CONCLUSIONS: This pioneer validation study of Brazilian Behavioral Pain Scale exhibits satisfactory index of internal consistency, interrater reliability, responsiveness and validity. Therefore, the Brazilian Behavioral Pain Scale version was considered a valid instrument for being used in adult sedated and mechanically ventilated patients in Brazil.

Factors affecting pain assessment scores in patients on mechanical ventilation.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how respiratory status and other aspects of the patients' condition affect pain assessments. METHODS: 　Pain was assessed in 20 patients aged ≥20 years who underwent cardiovascular surgery, and required postoperative mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit using the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS). A BPS score of ≥6 (pain) versus <6 (no pain) was the dependent variable for determining the effect on pain. RESULTS: 　Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that in 99 observations made at rest, pre- and post-turning and pre- and post-tracheal suctioning, the BPS score was significantly affected by gender, the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score, PaCO2, and HCO3-. The associations between BPS scores and APACHE II scores and HCO3- demonstrated that pain results from biological responses to invasion. Increases in PaCO2 affecting only the total BPS score suggests that PaCO2 is associated with other pain responses, regardless of respiratory status. CONCLUSION: 　The BPS score was significantly associated with disease severity and ventilatory capacity, demonstrating a need to examine pain assessment methods tailored to the severity of underlying disease, degree of respiratory failure and other aspects of individual patient's condition for effective pain management.

Risk factors and prognosis of pain events during mechanical ventilation: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Pain assessment is highly recommended in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. However, pain intensity and its impact on outcomes in these patients remain obscure. We collected the results of routine pain assessments, utilizing the behavioral pain scale (BPS), from 151 patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Risk factors associated with a pain event, defined as BPS of >5, and its impact on patient outcomes were investigated. METHODS: A total of 151 consecutive adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for more than 24 h in a single 10-bed ICU were enrolled in this study. The highest BPS within 48 h after the initiation of mechanical ventilation was collected, as well as information about the patients' characteristics and medication received. We also recorded patient outcomes, including time to successful weaning from mechanical ventilation, time to successful ICU discharge, and 30-day in-hospital mortality. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors independently associated with patients with a BPS of >5. Clinical outcomes were also assessed using multivariate logistic regression analysis, correcting for risk factors. RESULTS: We analyzed 151 patients. The median highest BPS was 4. The percentage of patients who recorded a BPS of >5 was 19.9% (n = 30). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the disuse of fentanyl and inotropic support was an independent predictor of pain event. Multivariable Cox regression analysis suggested that the development of a BPS of >5 was associated with increased mortality and a not statistically significant trend towards prolonged mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of ventilated patients experienced a BPS of >5 soon after the initiation of mechanical ventilation. Disuse of fentanyl and use of inotropic agents increased the risk of developing a BPS of >5 during mechanical ventilation. An association between adequate analgesia and improved patient outcomes provides a rationale for the assessment of pain during mechanical ventilation, with subsequent intervention if necessary. Pain events were common among ventilated patients. In critical care settings, appropriate and adequate pain management is warranted, given the association with improved patient outcomes.