Pain relief in ventilated preterms during endotracheal suctioning: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: In Switzerland approximately 8% of infants are born prematurely. Some of them undergo mechanical ventilation including endotracheal suctioning (ETS). ETS is one of the most frequently performed interventions and is linked to stress and pain, but its treatment is controversial. In Switzerland there is a lack of standardisation in pain relief for ETS. AIMS: To test the hypothesis that an intermittent dose of morphine reduces pain during ETS and that subsequent multisensorial stimulation (MSS), as a non pharmacological comforting intervention, helps infants to recover from experienced pain. METHOD: A randomized placebo controlled trial in two tertiary neonatal intensive care units (NICU) with a sample of 30 mechanically ventilated preterm infants was conducted. Pain was measured by three pain assessment tools (Bernese Pain Scale for Neonates, Premature Infant Pain Profile and Visual Analogue Scale) RESULTS: Morphine did not lead to any pain relief from ETS as measured by three pain scales. Nor did the comforting intervention of MSS show any effect. Repeated-measure analysis of variance for the within and between groups comparison showed no statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of morphine for pain relief in ventilated preterm neonates during ETS remains questionable and the use of MSS as a comforting intervention after painful stimulus cannot be recommended. The validity testing of the instruments for this patient population should undergo a systematic validation trajectory. Future research should focus on options among non pharmacological interventions for relieving pain during ETS.

Ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block in cats undergoing perineal urethrostomy: a prospective, randomised, investigator-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness, in terms of analgesic efficacy and safety, of ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block performed with bupivacaine in cats undergoing perineal urethrostomy. Eighteen client-owned male cats scheduled for perineal urethrostomy were enrolled in the study and assigned to one of two treatment groups. The pudendal nerve block was performed under general anaesthesia as described elsewhere, with 0.3 ml/kg of either saline (group C) or 0.5% bupivacaine (group B) - the total injection volume being split equally on the two sites of injection (left and right). Intra-operatively, assessment of nociception was based on the rescue analgesics requirement, as well as on the evaluation of changes in physiological parameters in comparison with the baseline values. Post-operative pain assessment was performed using three different pain scales at recovery and then 1, 2 and 3 h after recovery. Cats in group B showed lower heart rates and required fewer analgesics during surgery than group C. Post-operatively, group B had lower pain scores and needed less rescue buprenorphine than group C. Iatrogenic block-related complications were not observed. In conclusion, the ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block can be considered clinically useful in feline medicine as it provides reliable analgesia in cats undergoing perineal urethrostomy.

Coping resources in a sample of chronic low back pain patients: Evaluation of the questionnaire for back pain

BACKGROUND The coping resources questionnaire for back pain (FBR) uses 12 items to measure the perceived helpfulness of different coping resources (CRs, social emotional support, practical help, knowledge, movement and relaxation, leisure and pleasure, spirituality and cognitive strategies). The aim of the study was to evaluate the instrument in a clinical patient sample assessed in a primary care setting. SAMPLE AND METHODS The study was a secondary evaluation of empirical data from a large cohort study in general practices. The 58 participating primary care practices recruited patients who reported chronic back pain in the consultation. Besides the FBR and a pain sketch, the patients completed scales measuring depression, anxiety, resilience, sociodemographic factors and pain characteristics. To allow computing of retested parameters the FBR was sent to some of the original participants again after 6 months (90% response rate). We calculated consistency and retest reliability coefficients as well as correlations between the FBR subscales and depression, anxiety and resilience scores to account for validity. By means of a cluster analysis groups with different resource profiles were formed. Results. RESULTS For the study 609 complete FBR baseline data sets could be used for statistical analysis. The internal consistency scores ranged fromα=0.58 to α=0.78 and retest reliability scores were between rTT=0.41 and rTT=0.63. Correlation with depression, fear and resilience ranged from r=-0.38 to r=0.42. The cluster analysis resulted in four groups with relatively homogenous intragroup profiles (high CRs, low spirituality, medium CRs, low CRs). The four groups differed significantly in fear and depression (the more inefficient the resources the higher the difference) as well as in resilience (the more inefficient the lower the difference). The group with low CRs also reported permanent pain with no relief. The groups did not otherwise differ. CONCLUSIONS The FBR is an economic instrument that is suitable for practical use e.g. in primary care practices to identify strengths and deficits in the CRs of chronic pain patients that can then be specified in face to face consultation. However, due to the rather low reliability, the use of subscales for profile differentiation and follow-up measurement in individual diagnoses is limited.

Psychological interventions for acute pain after open heart surgery

BACKGROUND Acute postoperative pain is one of the most disturbing complaints in open heart surgery, and is associated with a risk of negative consequences. Several trials investigated the effects of psychological interventions to reduce acute postoperative pain and improve the course of physical and psychological recovery of participants undergoing open heart surgery. OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy of psychological interventions as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone or standard care plus attention in adults undergoing open heart surgery on pain, pain medication, mental distress, mobility, and time to extubation. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to September 2013), EMBASE (1980 to September 2013), Web of Science (all years to September 2013), and PsycINFO (all years to September 2013) for eligible studies. We used the 'related articles' and 'cited by' options of eligible studies to identify additional relevant studies. We also checked lists of references of relevant articles and previous reviews. We also searched the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Full Text Database (all years to September 2013) and contacted the authors of primary studies to identify any unpublished material. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone or standard care plus attention in adults undergoing open heart surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors (SK and JR) independently assessed trials for eligibility, estimated the risk of bias and extracted all data. We calculated effect sizes for each comparison (Hedges' g) and meta-analysed data using a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS Nineteen trials were included (2164 participants).No study reported data on the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 50% from baseline. Only one study reported data on the number of participants below 30/100 mm on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in pain intensity. Psychological interventions have no beneficial effects in reducing pain intensity measured with continuous scales in the medium-term interval (g -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.20, 4 studies, 413 participants, moderate quality evidence) nor in the long-term interval (g 0.12, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.33, 3 studies, 280 participants, low quality evidence).No study reported data on median time to remedication or on number of participants remedicated. Only one study provided data on postoperative analgesic use. Studies reporting data on mental distress in the medium-term interval revealed a small beneficial effect of psychological interventions (g 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.62, 12 studies, 1144 participants, low quality evidence). Likewise, a small beneficial effect of psychological interventions on mental distress was obtained in the long-term interval (g 0.28, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.51, 11 studies, 1320 participants, low quality evidence). There were no beneficial effects of psychological interventions on mobility in the medium-term interval (g 0.23, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.67, 3 studies, 444 participants, low quality evidence) nor in the long-term interval (g 0.29, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.71, 4 studies, 423 participants, low quality evidence). Only one study reported data on time to extubation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS For the majority of outcomes (two-thirds) we could not perform a meta-analysis since outcomes were not measured, or data were provided by one trial only. Psychological interventions have no beneficial effects on reducing postoperative pain intensity or enhancing mobility. There is low quality evidence that psychological interventions reduce postoperative mental distress. Due to limitations in methodological quality, a small number of studies, and large heterogeneity, we rated the quality of the body of evidence as low. Future trials should measure crucial outcomes (e.g. number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 50% from baseline) and should focus to enhance the quality of the body of evidence in general. Altogether, the current evidence does not clearly support the use of psychological interventions to reduce pain in participants undergoing open heart surgery.