Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for analgesia in intensive care units: a survey of Canadian critical care physicians.

PURPOSE: Opioids remain the mainstay of analgesia for critically ill patients, but its exposure is associated with negative effects including persistent use after discharge. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may be an effective alternative to opioids with fewer adverse effects. We aimed to describe beliefs and attitudes towards the use of NSAIDs in adult intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: Our survey of Canadian ICU physicians was conducted using a web-based platform and distributed through the Canadian Critical Care Society (CCCS) email distribution list. We used previously described survey development methodology including question generation and reduction, pretesting, and clinical sensibility and pilot testing. RESULTS: We received 115 completed surveys from 321 CCCS members (36%). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs use was most described as "rarely" (59 respondents, 51%) with the primary concern being adverse events (acute kidney injury [108 respondents, 94%] and gastrointestinal bleeding [92 respondents, 80%]). The primary preferred analgesic was acetaminophen (75 respondents, 65%) followed by opioids (40 respondents, 35%). Most respondents (91 respondents, 80%) would be willing to participate in a randomized controlled trial examining NSAID use in critical care. CONCLUSIONS: In our survey, Canadian critical care physicians did not mention commonly using NSAIDs primarily because of concerns about adverse events. Nevertheless, respondents were interested in further studying ketorolac, a commonly used NSAID outside of the ICU, in critically ill patients.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les opioïdes restent le pilier de l'analgésie pour les patient·es gravement malades, mais l'exposition à ces agents est associée à des effets négatifs, notamment à leur utilisation persistante après le congé de l'hôpital. Les anti-inflammatoires non stéroïdiens (AINS) pourraient constituer une alternative efficace aux opioïdes avec moins d'effets indésirables. Nous avons cherché à décrire les croyances et les attitudes à l'égard de l'utilisation des AINS dans les unités de soins intensifs (USI) pour adultes. MéTHODE: Notre sondage auprès des médecins intensivistes au Canada a été mené à l'aide d'une plateforme Web et distribué aux personnes sur la liste de distribution électronique de la Société canadienne de soins intensifs (SCSI). Nous avons utilisé une méthodologie d'élaboration d'enquêtes décrite précédemment, y compris la génération et la réduction de questions, les tests préalables, la sensibilité clinique et les tests pilotes. RéSULTATS: Nous avons reçu 115 sondages remplis par 321 membres de la SCSI (36 %). L'utilisation d'anti-inflammatoires non stéroïdiens a été décrite comme « rare ¼ (59 répondant·es, 51 %), la principale préoccupation étant les événements indésirables (insuffisance rénale aiguë [108 répondant·es, 94 %] et saignements gastro-intestinaux [92 répondant·es, 80 %]). Le principal analgésique préféré était l'acétaminophène (75 répondant·es, 65 %), suivi des opioïdes (40 répondant·es, 35 %). La plupart des répondant·es (91 répondant·es, 80 %) seraient prêt·es à participer à une étude randomisée contrôlée examinant l'utilisation des AINS en soins intensifs. CONCLUSION: Dans notre sondage, les médecins intensivistes au Canada n'ont pas mentionné l'utilisation courante d'AINS, principalement en raison de préoccupations concernant leurs effets indésirables. Néanmoins, les répondant·es étaient intéressé·es à étudier plus avant le kétorolac, un AINS couramment utilisé en dehors des soins intensifs, chez les patient·es gravement malades.

Systemic Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatories for Analgesia in Postoperative Critical Care Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials.

While opioids are part of usual care for analgesia in the ICU, there are concerns regarding excess use. This is a systematic review of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) use in postoperative critical care adult patients. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, trial registries, Google Scholar, and relevant systematic reviews through March 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed independently and induplicate by two investigators to identify eligible studies. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) that compared NSAIDs alone or as an adjunct to opioids for systemic analgesia. The primary outcome was opioid utilization. DATA EXTRACTION: In duplicate, investigators independently extracted study characteristics, patient demographics, intervention details, and outcomes of interest using predefined abstraction forms. Statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager software Version 5.4. (The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 15 RCTs (n = 1,621 patients) for admission to the ICU for postoperative management after elective procedures. Adjunctive NSAID therapy to opioids reduced 24-hour oral morphine equivalent consumption by 21.4 mg (95% CI, 11.8-31.0 mg reduction; high certainty) and probably reduced pain scores (measured by Visual Analog Scale) by 6.1 mm (95% CI, 12.2 decrease to 0.1 increase; moderate certainty). Adjunctive NSAID therapy probably had no impact on the duration of mechanical ventilation (1.6 hr reduction; 95% CI, 0.4 hr to 2.7 reduction; moderate certainty) and may have no impact on ICU length of stay (2.1 hr reduction; 95% CI, 6.1 hr reduction to 2.0 hr increase; low certainty). Variability in reporting adverse outcomes (e.g., gastrointestinal bleeding, acute kidney injury) precluded their meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In postoperative critical care adult patients, systemic NSAIDs reduced opioid use and probably reduced pain scores. However, the evidence is uncertain for the duration of mechanical ventilation or ICU length of stay. Further research is required to characterize the prevalence of NSAID-related adverse outcomes.

The patient generated subjective global assessment short form is a useful screening tool to detect risk for malnutrition in patients with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Malnutrition is a modifiable risk factor for morbidity and mortality in cirrhosis. Nutrition risk screening is recommended in cirrhosis nutrition guidelines, but is not routinely completed in practice. The patient-generated subjective global assessment short form (PG-SGA SF) is a patient-completed screen that has potential to be a substitute for more time and resource intensive nutrition screens. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to compare the PG-SGA SF and three other patient-completed screens against the nutrition assessment reference method in cirrhosis, the Royal Free Hospital subjective global assessment (RFH-SGA). We also explored whether being classified "at-risk" on a nutritional screening tool was associated with clinical outcomes of unplanned hospitalization or death. METHODS: Patients completed four nutrition screening tools with or without support from a caregiver. The RFH-SGA was carried out by a blinded registered dietitian. The four screening tools were compared against the RFH-SGA to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients were included. The PG-SGA SF screened the highest number of patients positive for malnutrition risk (52%), was the most accurate, and had the highest sensitivity. Being at risk for malnutrition on the PG-SGA SF was associated with a higher risk of unplanned hospitalization (unadjusted sHR 2.78 (95% CI 1.3-5.9), p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: The PG-SGA SF identifies malnutrition risk at similar or superior rates to other patient-generated screening tools in patients with cirrhosis. Our findings support its potential as a patient completed solution for identifying malnutrition risk in cirrhosis.