Assessing pain in paralyzed critically ill patients receiving neuromuscular blocking agents: A monocenter prospective cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Given the absence of established recommendations for pain assessment in pharmacologically paralyzed Intensive-Care-Units (ICU) patients under Neuro-Muscular-Blocking Agents (NMBA), this study assessed the validity of various parameters for evaluating pain in this specific population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four electrophysiological parameters (instant-Analgesia-Nociception-Index (ANI), Bispectral index (BIS), Heart Rate (HR) and Mean Arterial Blood Pressure (ABP)) and one clinical parameter (Behavioural-Pain-Scale (BPS)) were recorded during tracheal-suctioning in all consecutive ICU patients who required a continuous infusion of cisatracurium, before and just after paralysis recovery measured by Train-of-Four ratio. The validity of the five pain-related parameters was assessed by comparing the values recorded during different situations (before/during/after the nociceptive procedure) (discriminant-validity, primary outcome), and the effect of paralysis was assessed by comparing values obtained during and after paralysis (reliability, secondary outcome). RESULTS: Twenty patients were analyzed. ANI, BIS, and HR significantly changed during the nociceptive procedure in both paralysis and recovery, while BPS changed only post-recovery. ANI and HR were unaffected by paralysis, unlike BIS and BPS (mixed-effect model). ANI exhibited the highest discriminant-validity, with values (min 0/max 100) decreasing from 71 [48-89] at rest to 41 [25-72] during tracheal suctioning in paralyzed patients, and from 71 [53-85] at rest to 40 [31-52] in non-paralyzed patients. CONCLUSIONS: ANI proves the most discriminant parameter for pain detection in both paralyzed and non-paralyzed sedated ICU patients. Its significant and clinically relevant decrease during tracheal suctioning remains unaltered by NMBA use. Pending further studies on analgesia protocols based on ANI, it could be used to assess pain during nociceptive procedures in ICU patients receiving NMBA.

Prevalence of Migraine Disease in Electrohypersensitive Patients.

BACKGROUND: The vast majority of electrohypersensitive (EHS) patients present headaches on contact with an electromagnetic source. Clinical features suggest that the headaches of these patients could be a variant of the migraine disease and could be treated as such. We aimed to assess the prevalence of migraine disease in EHS patients using a validated questionnaire. METHODS: Patients with EHS defined according to WHO criteria were contacted through EHS patient support associations. They were required to answer a self-questionnaire including clinical data and the extended French version of the ID Migraine questionnaire (ef-ID Migraine) to screen for the migraine disease. Migraine prevalence and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported. Patients' characteristics, symptoms (rheumatology, digestive, cognitive, respiratory, cardiac, mood, cutaneous, headache, perception, genital, tinnitus and tiredness) and impact on daily life were compared between migraineur and non-migraineur patients. RESULTS: A total of 293 patients were included (97% women, mean age 57 ± 12 years). Migraine was diagnosed in 65% (N = 191; 95% CI: 60-71%) with the ef-ID Migraine. The migraine diagnosis was accompanied by nausea/vomiting in 50% of cases, photophobia in 69% or visual disturbances in 38%. All of the 12 symptoms assessed were of higher intensity in migraineurs than in non-migraineurs. The symptoms prevented social life in 88% of migraineurs and 75% of non-migraineurs (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our work encourages us to consider the headaches of these patients as a possible variant of the migraine disease and, possibly, to manage them according to the current recommendations.

Discomfort improvement for critically ill patients using electronic relaxation devices: results of the cross-over randomized controlled trial E-CHOISIR (Electronic-CHOIce of a System for Intensive care Relaxation).

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of different electronic relaxation devices on common stressful patient symptoms experienced in intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Sixty critically ill patients were enrolled in four relaxation sessions using a randomized cross-over design: standard relaxation (TV/radio), music therapy (MUSIC-CARE©), and two virtual reality systems using either real motion pictures (DEEPSEN©) or synthetic motion pictures (HEALTHY-MIND©). The goal was to determine which device was the best to reduce overall patient discomfort intensity (0-10 Numeric Rating Scale (NRS); primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints were specific stressful symptoms (pain, anxiety, dyspnea, thirst, and lack of rest feeling) and stress response measured by Analgesia/Nociception Index (ANI). Multivariate mixed-effect analysis was used, taking into account patient characteristics and multiple measurements. RESULTS: Fifty patients followed the full research protocol, and ten patients did at least one research planned session of relaxation. HEALTHY-MIND© was associated with a significant decrease in overall discomfort, the primary endpoint (median NRS = 4[2-6] vs. 2[0-5]; p = 0.01, mixed-effect model), accompanied by a significant decrease in stress response (increase in ANI, secondary endpoint; p < 0.01). Regarding other secondary endpoints, each of the two virtual reality systems was associated with a decrease in anxiety (p < 0.01), while HEALTHY-MIND© was associated also with a decrease in pain (p = 0.001) and DEEPSEN© with a decrease in lack of rest (p = 0.01). Three incidents (claustrophobia/dyspnea/agitation) were reported among 109 virtual reality sessions. Cybersickness was rare (NRS = 0[0-0]). CONCLUSION: Electronic relaxation therapy is a promising, safe, and effective non-pharmacological solution that can be used to improve overall discomfort in alert and non-delirious ICU patients. Its effectiveness depends on technical characteristics (virtual reality using a synthetic imagined world versus a real world or music therapy alone without virtual reality), as well as the type of symptoms.

Pectoral Nerve Blocks for Breast Augmentation Surgery: A Randomized, Double-blind, Dual-centered Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pectoral nerve blocks have been proposed for analgesia during and after breast cancer surgery, but data are conflicted in aesthetic breast surgery. This trial tested the primary hypothesis that adding a preincisional pectoral nerve block is superior to systemic multimodal analgesic regimen alone for pain control after breast augmentation surgery. A second hypothesis is that rescue opioid consumption would be decreased with a long-lasting effect for both outcomes during the following days. METHODS: Seventy-three adult female patients undergoing aesthetic breast augmentation surgery under general anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive a pectoral nerve block versus no block. Both groups received standard care with protocolized multimodal analgesia alone including systematic acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The primary outcome measure was the maximal numerical rating scale in the first 6 h after extubation. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative remifentanil consumption and from extubation to day 5: maximal numerical rating scale, postoperative cumulative opioid consumption and postoperative opioid side effects, and patient satisfaction recorded at day 5. RESULTS: The maximal numerical rating scale score in the first 6 h was lower in the pectoral nerve block group compared with the control group (3.9 ± 2.5 vs. 5.2 ± 2.2; difference: -1.2 [95% CI, -2.3 to -0.1]; P = 0.036). The pectoral nerve block group had a lower maximal numerical rating scale between days 1 and 5 (2.2 ± 1.9 vs. 3.2 ± 1.7; P = 0.032). The cumulative amount of overall opioids consumption (oral morphine equivalent) was lower for the pectoral nerve block group from hour 6 to day 1 (0.0 [0.0 to 21.0] vs. 21.0 [0.0 to 31.5] mg, P = 0.006) and from days 1 to 5 (0.0 [0.0 to 21.0] vs. 21.0 [0.0 to 51] mg, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Pectoral nerve block in conjunction with multimodal analgesia provides effective perioperative pain relief after aesthetic breast surgery and is associated with reduced opioid consumption over the first 5 postoperative days.

Assessing pain in critically ill brain-injured patients: a psychometric comparison of 3 pain scales and videopupillometry.

Three clinical scales (the Nociception Coma Scale adapted for Intubated patients [NCS-I], its Revised version [NCS-R-I], and the Behavioral Pain Scale [BPS]) and videopupillometry were compared for measuring pain in intubated, noncommunicating, critically ill, brain-injured patients. Pain assessment was performed before, during, just after, and 5 minutes after 3 procedures: the reference non-nociceptive procedure (assessment of the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale) and 2 nociceptive procedures (turning and tracheal suctioning). The primary endpoint was construct validity (discriminant and criterion validation), determined by comparing pain measurements between different times/procedures. Secondary endpoints were internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and feasibility. Fifty patients (54% women, median age 63 years [56-68]) were included 13 [7-24] days after brain injury (76% hemorrhagic or ischemic strokes). All tools increased significantly more (P < 0.001) during the nociceptive procedures vs the non-nociceptive procedure. The BPS was the only pain tool that did not increase significantly during the non-nociceptive procedure (P = 0.41), suggesting that it was the most discriminant tool. The BPS, NCS-I, and NCS-R-I were good predictors of nociception with areas under the curves ≥0.96, contrary to videopupillometry (area under the curve = 0.67). The BPS, NCS-I, and NCS-I-R had high inter-rater reliabilities (weighted kappa = 0.86, 0.82 and 0.84, respectively). Internal consistency was moderate (>0.60) for all pain scales. Factor analysis represented a majority of information on a first dimension, with motor domains represented on a second dimension. Scale feasibility was better for the NCS-I and NCS-R-I than for the BPS. In conclusion, the BPS, NCS-I, and NCS-R-I are valid, reliable, and acceptable pain scales for use in intubated critically ill, brain-injured patients, unlike videopupillometry. Future research requires tool design centered on domains of observation adapted to this very specific population.

The 2014 updated version of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit compared to the 5th version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and other current methods used by intensivists.

BACKGROUND: One third of patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) will develop delirium. However, delirium is under-recognized by bedside clinicians without the use of delirium screening tools, such as the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) or the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). The CAM-ICU was updated in 2014 to improve its use by clinicians throughout the world. It has never been validated compared to the new reference standard, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th version (DSM-5). METHODS: We made a prospective psychometric study in a 16-bed medical-surgical ICU of a French academic hospital, to measure the diagnostic performance of the 2014 updated CAM-ICU compared to the DSM-5 as the reference standard. We included consecutive adult patients with a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) ≥ -3, without preexisting cognitive disorders, psychosis or cerebral injury. Delirium was independently assessed by neuropsychological experts using an operationalized approach to DSM-5, by investigators using the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC, by bedside clinicians and by ICU patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated considering neuropsychologist DSM-5 assessments as the reference standard (primary endpoint). CAM-ICU inter-observer agreement, as well as that between delirium diagnosis methods and the reference standard, was summarized using κ coefficients, which were subsequently compared using the Z-test. RESULTS: Delirium was diagnosed by experts in 38% of the 108 patients included for analysis. The CAM-ICU had a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100% and a negative predictive value of 91%. Compared to the reference standard, the CAM-ICU had a significantly (p < 0.05) higher agreement (κ = 0.86 ± 0.05) than the physicians,' residents' and nurses' diagnoses (κ = 0.65 ± 0.09; 0.63 ± 0.09; 0.61 ± 0.09, respectively), as well as the patient's own impression of feeling delirious (κ = 0.02 ± 0.11). Differences between the ICDSC (κ = 0.69 ± 0.07) and CAM-ICU were not significant (p = 0.054). The CAM-ICU demonstrated a high reliability for inter-observer agreement (κ = 0.87 ± 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The 2014 updated version of the CAM-ICU is valid according to DSM-5 criteria and reliable regarding inter-observer agreement in a research setting. Delirium remains under-recognized by bedside clinicians.

The CAM-ICU has now a French "official" version. The translation process of the 2014 updated Complete Training Manual of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit in French (CAM-ICU.fr).

INTRODUCTION: Delirium is common in Intensive-Care-Unit (ICU) patients but under-recognized by bed-side clinicians when not using validated delirium-screening tools. The Confusion-Assessment-Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) has demonstrated very good psychometric properties, and has been translated into many different languages though not into French. We undertook this opportunity to describe the translation process. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The translation was performed following recommended guidelines. The updated method published in 2014 including introduction letters, worksheet and flowsheet for bed-side use, the method itself, case-scenarios for training and Frequently-Asked-Questions (32 pages) was translated into French language by a neuropsychological researcher who was not familiar with the original method. Then, the whole method was back-translated by a native English-French bilingual speaker. The new English version was compared to the original one by the Vanderbilt University ICU-delirium-team. Discrepancies were discussed between the two teams before final approval of the French version. RESULTS: The entire process took one year. Among the 3692 words of the back-translated version of the method itself, 18 discrepancies occurred. Eight (44%) lead to changes in the final version. Details of the translation process are provided. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The French version of CAM-ICU is now available for French-speaking ICUs. The CAM-ICU is provided with its complete training-manual that was challenging to translate following recommended process. While many such translations have been done for other clinical tools, few have published the details of the process itself. We hope that the availability of such teaching material will now facilitate a large implementation of delirium-screening in French-speaking ICUs.