The Association of Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Pain Outcomes in Adults: A Systematic Review.

Objective: The specific link between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and pain is unknown, but it has been hypothesized that OSA patients are hyperalgesic because of fragmented sleep and hypoxemia that enhance sensitivity to pain, promote inflammation, and increase spontaneous pain. We conducted a systematic review of the literature assessing whether OSA is a risk factor for subjective pain intensity and experimental pain tolerance and threshold. Design/Participants: A search of published studies in English in MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception through May 2017 was performed. Search terms included "sleep apnea," "continuous positive airway pressure," "CPAP," "pain," and "chronic pain." Methods: We included any study that reported an association between OSA or polysomnogram assessments with pain outcomes or reported the effect of CPAP on pain outcomes. Controlled studies, cohort studies, and case-control studies were included. Results: We identified 448 studies from PubMed and 959 studies from Embase, giving a combined 1,333 studies after removing duplicates. After detailed selection, 28 articles were reviewed in full and 12 met study inclusion criteria. Whereas several studies found an association between OSA and pain intensity or experimental pain, there was considerable variability among study outcomes. Delivery of CPAP may improve pain and decrease opioid use, although the exact nature of the relationship between pain and the various pathophysiologic components of OSA is unclear. Conclusions: This systematic review summarizes the current evidence for the association of OSA and pain outcomes. Further research is needed to identify the differential effects of nocturnal hypoxemia and fragmented sleep on pain intensity. Clinicians might consider screening patients with chronic pain for OSA.

Adaptation and Uncertainty: A Qualitative Examination of Provider Experiences With Prone Positioning for Intubated Patients With COVID-19 ARDS.

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning was widely adopted for use in patients with ARDS from COVID-19. However, proning was also delivered in ways that differed from historical evidence and practice. In implementation research, these changes are referred to as adaptations, and they occur constantly as evidence-based interventions are used in real-world practice. Adaptations can alter the delivered intervention, impacting patient and implementation outcomes. RESEARCH QUESTION: How have clinicians adapted prone positioning to COVID-19 ARDS, and what uncertainties remain regarding optimal proning use? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with ICU clinicians from two hospitals in Baltimore, MD, from February to July 2021. We interviewed physicians (MDs), registered nurses (RNs), respiratory therapists (RTs), advanced practice providers (APPs), and physical therapists (PTs) involved with proning mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS. We used thematic analysis of interviews to classify proning adaptations and clinician uncertainties about best practice for prone positioning. RESULTS: Forty ICU clinicians (12 MDs, 4 APPs, 12 RNs, 7 RTs, and 5 PTs) were interviewed. Clinicians described several adaptations to the practice of prone positioning, including earlier proning initiation, extended duration of proning sessions, and less use of concomitant neuromuscular blockade. Clinicians expressed uncertainty regarding the optimal timing of initiation and duration of prone positioning. This uncertainty was viewed as a driver of practice variation. Although prescribers intended to use less deep sedation and paralysis in proned patients compared with historical evidence and practice, this raised concerns regarding patient comfort and safety amongst RNs and RTs. INTERPRETATION: Prone positioning in patients with COVID-19 ARDS has been adapted from historically described practice. Understanding the impact of these adaptations on patient and implementation outcomes and addressing clinician uncertainties are priority areas for future research to optimize the use of prone positioning.

Factors Influencing the Implementation of Prone Positioning during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study.

Rationale: The adoption of prone positioning for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has historically been poor. However, in mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) ARDS, proning has increased. Understanding the factors influencing this change is important for further expanding and sustaining the use of prone positioning in appropriate clinical settings. Objectives: To characterize factors influencing the implementation of prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with 40 intensive care unit (ICU) team members (physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers, respiratory therapists, and physical therapists) working at two academic hospitals. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, a widely used implementation science framework outlining important features of implementation, to structure the interview guide and thematic analysis of interviews. Results: ICU clinicians reported that during the COVID-19 pandemic, proning was viewed as standard early therapy for COVID-19 ARDS rather than salvage therapy for refractory hypoxemia. By caring for large volumes of proned patients, clinicians gained increased comfort with proning and now view proning as a low-risk, high-benefit intervention. Within ICUs, adequate numbers of trained staff members, increased team agreement around proning, and the availability of specific equipment (e.g., to limit pressure injuries) facilitated greater proning use. Hospital-level supports included proning teams, centralized educational resources specific to the management of COVID-19 (including a recommendation for prone positioning), and an electronic medical record proning order. Important implementation processes included informal dissemination of best practices through on-the-job learning and team interactions during routine bedside care. Conclusions: The implementation of prone positioning for COVID-19 ARDS took place in the context of evolving clinician viewpoints and ICU team cultures. Proning was facilitated by hospital support and buy-in and leadership from bedside clinicians. The successful implementation of prone positioning during the COVID-19 pandemic may serve as a model for the implementation of other evidence-based therapies in critical care.

Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Pain Intensity in Young Adults.

Rationale: Prior research studies on the association of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and pain intensity have examined older patients; there is a need to understand the relationship between OSA and pain intensity among younger adults.Objectives: To examine whether young adults with diagnosed OSA are more likely to report higher pain intensity compared with those without OSA.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a cohort study of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn veterans who had at least one visit to a Veterans Health Administration primary care clinic between 2001 and 2014. OSA was identified using one inpatient or two outpatient International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes from electronic medical records. Average pain intensity (based on the self-reported 0-10 numeric rating scale over a 12-month period) was categorized as no pain/mild (0-3; no pain) and moderate/severe (4-10; significant pain). Covariates included age, sex, education, race, mental health diagnoses, headache diagnoses, pain diagnoses, hypertension, diabetes, body mass index, and smoking status. Multivariate logistic regression models were used, and multiple imputation was performed to generate values for missing variables.Results: We identified 858,226 young adults (mean age 30 yr [SD = 7]), of whom 91,244 (10.6%) had a diagnosis of OSA and 238,587 (27.8%) reported moderate/severe pain for the 12-month average. with young adults without OSA, those with OSA were more likely to report moderate/severe pain intensity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.11) even after controlling for covariates.Conclusions: We found that young adults with OSA have greater odds of comorbid moderate/severe pain. Because of the high prevalence of chronic pain in younger adults, this study highlights the need to understand the impact of OSA diagnosis and treatment on pain intensity. Future work is needed to determine the role of effective OSA treatment on pain intensity over time in these young adults.