Timing of sedation and patient-reported pain outcomes during cardiac catheterization: Results from the UNTAP-intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Invasive cardiac catheterization (CC) temporarily increases pain, discomfort, and anxiety. Procedural sedation is deployed to mitigate these symptoms, though practice varies. Research evaluating peri-procedural patient-reported outcomes is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 175 patients undergoing CC to short interval ([SI] group, <6 min) or long interval ([LI] group, ≥6 min) time intervals between initial intravenous sedation and local anesthetic administration. Outcomes included: (1) total pain medication use, (2) patient-reported and behaviorally assessed pain and (3) patient satisfaction during outpatient CC. Generalized linear mixed effect models were used to evaluate the impact of treatment time interval on total medication utilization, pain, and satisfaction. Among enrollees the mean age was 62 (standard deviation [SD] = 13.4), a majority were male (66%), white (74%), and overweight (mean body mass index = 28.5 [SD = 5.6]). Total pain medication use did not vary between treatment groups (p = 0.257), with no difference in total fentanyl (p = 0.288) or midazolam (p = 0.292). Post-treatment pain levels and nurse-observed pain were not statistically significant between groups (p = 0.324 & p = 0.656, respectively. No significant differences with satisfaction with sedation were found between the groups (p = 0.95) Patient-reported pain, satisfaction and nurse-observed measures of pain did not differ, after adjustment for demographic and procedural factors. Analyses of treatment effect modification revealed that postprocedure self-reported pain levels varied systematically between individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (SI = 2.2 [0.8, 3.6] vs. LI = 0.7 [-0.6, 2.0]) compared with participants not undergoing PCI (SI = 0.4 [-0.8, 1.7] vs. LI = 0.7 [-0.3, 1.6]) (p = 0.043 for interaction). CONCLUSION: No consistent treatment differences were found for total medication dose, pain, or satisfaction regardless of timing between sedation and local anesthetic. Treatment moderations were seen for patients undergoing PCI. Further investigation of how procedural and individual factors impact the patient experience during CC is needed.

Understanding the patient experience of pain and discomfort during cardiac catheterization.

OBJECTIVES: Patient centeredness is an essential component of high-quality care, yet little is known regarding the patient experience during procedures performed in the cardiac catheterization lab. BACKGROUND: Available literature focuses on the safe delivery of sedation, but does not address patient-reported satisfaction or comfort. Further delineation of how procedural factors impact the patient experience is needed. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, exploratory analysis of adult cardiac catheterization outpatients (n = 375) receiving physician ordered, nurse administered procedural sedation (benzodiazepine and/or opioids) between April and June, 2017. Data were abstracted from the procedural database, Electronic Health Record, and Press Ganey© surveys. RESULTS: The mean age was 63 (SD 12.2), a majority were male (n = 226; 60%), white (n = 271; 73%), and overweight (mean body mass index = 29, SD 6.8). Patient-reported satisfaction with pain control and perceived staff concern for comfort were >75th percentile (Press Ganey© survey), with no difference in preprocedure and postprocedure pain scores (p = .596). Intraprocedural medication dose range and mean frequency were highly variable: midazolam (0.25-5.5 mg; 1.48); fentanyl (12.5-200 mcg; 1.63); and hydromorphone (0.5-2.5 mg; 1.33). Median time interval between administration of initial sedation and local anesthetic was 6 min. Patients with longer intervals had less frequent dosing (p < .001) and less total procedural sedation (p < .001). Sensitivity analysis revealed that trainee/fellow involvement (p = .001), younger age (p = .002), and shorter time intervals (p < .001) were associated with increased frequency and larger total dose. CONCLUSIONS: Waiting to gain vascular access following administration of procedural was associated with less frequent subsequent dosing, lower overall administration, and similar patient satisfaction. Optimizing processes for administering periprocedural sedation may allow for less medication without impacting patient experience.