Search

The pain response, an evolutionary adaptation which promotes tissue integrity and survival, is prevalent in patients with critical illness or injury. However, pain in the intensive care unit (ICU) can be maladaptive by increasing suffering and contributing to physiologic perturbations, agitation, ventilator dyssynchrony, and impaired mobility. The accurate assessment of pain and precise targeting of analgesic therapy is therefore a fundamental goal of intensive care medicine. Here, we review pain assessment tools which have been developed and/or validated for use in the ICU. Direct pain evaluation in critically ill patients is challenged by barriers to assessment such as intubation, sedation, brain dysfunction or injury, and, more recently, paralysis for management of severe ARDS due to COVID-19. In these instances, pain assessment is relegated to indirect measurement tools whose validity and reliability are not well established. Protocol-based pain surveys in the ICU have been associated with reductions in pain scores, opioid requirements, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU length of stay. Research aiming to test and validate specific and sensitive pain biomarkers could lay the foundation for more precise, effective, and safe treatment of pain in the ICU.

Objective The purpose of this study was to determine the duration, intensity, location, and usual treatment of pain throughout hospitalization following subarachnoid hemorrhage. Background Headache following subarachnoid hemorrhage can be sudden and severe. Little is known about the longitudinal course of headache or its analgesic therapy following the initial diagnosis of subarachnoid hemorrhage. Methods A prospectively maintained database of 564 patients diagnosed with cerebral aneurysms collected from 10/2009 to 2/2013 was searched for conscious patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage. Available electronic records were queried for pain scores (0-10/10), location, and analgesic consumption. Results Forty-six adults with subarachnoid hemorrhage met eligibility criteria for inclusion. Mean [CI 95] daily pain was 3.8 [3.2, 4.4] and maximal daily pain was 5.8 [5.1, 6.6]. Eighty-nine percent of patients reported severe pain of 7-10/10, and 63% of patients reported 10/10 pain at some point during hospitalization. While mean [CI 95] pain declined over the course of hospital stay at a rate of 0.06 [0.04, 0.07] units/day (P

Purpose of review Pain management in neurocritical care is a subject often avoided because of concerns over the side-effects of analgesics and the potential to cause additional neurological injury with treatment. The sedation and hypercapnia caused by opioids have been feared to mask the neurological examination and contribute to elevations in intracranial pressure. Nevertheless, increasing attention to patient satisfaction has sparked a resurgence in pain management. As opioids have remained at the core of analgesic therapy, the increasing attention to pain has contributed to a growing epidemic of opioid dependence. In this review, we summarize the most recent literature regarding opioids and their alternatives in the treatment of acute pain in patients receiving neurocritical care. Recent findings Studies on pain management in neurocritical care continue to explore nonopioid analgesics as part of a multimodal strategy aimed at decreasing overall opioid consumption. Agents including local anesthetics, acetaminophen, ketamine, gabapentinoids, and dexmedetomidine continue to demonstrate efficacy. In addition, the prolonged longitudinal course of many recent trials has also revealed more about the transition from acute to chronic pain following hospitalization. Summary In an era of increasing attention to patient satisfaction mitigated by growing concerns over the harms imposed by opioids, alternative analgesic therapies are being investigated with promising results.

Objectives/Hypothesis To develop and assess the feasibility of a new standardized protocol to guide tracheostomy decannulation. Study Design Descriptive review of quality improvement project. Methods A quality improvement project was conducted in the inpatient setting of a tertiary urban academic hospital. Adult patients who had received a tracheostomy and for whom the indication for tracheostomy had resolved were included. A multidisciplinary task force reviewed input from clinicians caring for tracheostomy patients and developed a protocol for screening, capping, and decannulation. The primary outcome measured was successful decannulation. Results Fifty-seven patients were screened for a capping trial over a 12-month period; 54 were capped. Six patients were lost to follow-up. Fifty patients passed the capping trial, and all 50 were decannulated successfully. When decannulation was pursued in one patient who had twice failed the screening criteria and subsequent capping trials, the patient failed decannulation and ultimately required reintubation for the management of secretions. The screening tool had high sensitivity (90%) and positive predictive value (100%) for successful decannulation. Additionally, the number of reported patient safety concerns decreased from seven in the 6 months preceding implementation of the program to one report in the 6 months after implementation. Conclusion The new tracheostomy capping and decannulation protocol assisted in predicting both successful and failed decannulation. Although several patients failed certain capping criteria initially, the protocol stipulated modifications of care that enabled successful decannulation. The screening tool had high sensitivity and promoted communication, standardization of practice, and patient safety. Level of Evidence 2b. Laryngoscope, 124:1794–1800, 2014

OBJECTIVE The frequency of bedside percutaneous tracheostomies is increasing in intensive care medicine, and both safety and efficiency of care are critical elements in continuing success of this procedure. Prioritizing patient safety, a tracheostomy team was created at our institution to provide bedside expertise in surgery, anesthesiology, respiratory, and technical support. This study was performed to evaluate the metrics of patient outcome, efficiency of care, and cost-benefit analysis of the multidisciplinary Johns Hopkins Percutaneous Tracheostomy Program. DESIGN A review was performed for patients who received tracheostomies in 2004, the year before the Johns Hopkins Percutaneous Tracheostomy Program was established, and those who received tracheostomies in 2008, the year following the program's establishment. Comparative outcomes were evaluated, including the efficiency of procedure and intensive care unit length of stay, complication rate including bleeding, hypoxia, loss of airway, and a financial cost-benefit analysis. SETTING Single-center, major university hospital. PATIENTS The sample consisted of 363 patients who received a tracheostomy in the years 2004 and 2008. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS The number of percutaneous procedures increased from 59 of 126 tracheostomy patients in 2004, to 183 of 237 in 2008. There were significant decreases in the prevalence of procedural complications, particularly in the realm of airway injuries and physiologic disturbances. Regarding efficiency, the structured program reduced the time to tracheostomy and overall procedural time. The intensive care unit length of stay in nonpulmonary patients and improvement in intensive care unit and operating room back-fill efficiency contributed to an overall institutional financial benefit. CONCLUSIONS An institutionally subsidized, multi-disciplinary percutaneous tracheostomy program can improve the quality of care in a cost-effective manner by decreasing the incidence of tracheostomy complications and improving both the time to tracheostomy, duration of procedure, and postprocedural intensive care unit stay.

Radial artery insertion is a common procedure in intensive care units. We describe a case of a critically-ill 73-year-old man in the neurocritical care unit with a subarachnoid hemorrhage whose radial arterial catheter tip was transected from the main line and was successfully managed with bedside retrieval of the catheter.

To examine whether the implementation of a multidisciplinary percutaneous tracheostomy team decreases complications, improves efficiency in patient care, and reduces length of stay and cost in patients undergoing percutaneous tracheostomy.Case series with planned data collection.Urban, academic, tertiary care medical center.Patients who underwent a percutaneous tracheostomy in 2004 and 2008, before and after the formation of a multidisciplinary percutaneous tracheostomy team, were included in the study. Data for the study were retrieved from a tracheostomy database. Measured outcomes include complications, efficiency, length of stay, and cost.Complications such as airway bleeding and physiological disturbances decreased significantly in 2008 as compared with 2004. The percentage of patients who received a tracheostomy within 2 days increased from 42.3% to 92% (2004 vs 2008), showing improvement in efficiency of care. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of infection rate, length of stay, or mortality. However, in a subanalysis, the length of stay was found to be decreased in patients whose primary diagnosis was a neurological disorder. Finally, despite the necessity of a hospital-based subsidy, the team approach yielded substantial financial benefit to the medical center.Airway bleeding, physiological disturbances, and efficiency of care improved after the institution of a multidisciplinary percutaneous tracheostomy team approach and may have a favorable impact on health care costs.

Background: The steady rise in the number of critically ill patients in the USA has led to an increase in the need for tracheostomies in patients requiring chronic ventilatory support. There is a matched need for experienced operators to safely and efficiently perform these procedures. Objectives: We evaluated the effects on procedural outcomes and efficiency of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) placement in the medical intensive care unit (MICU) by the surgical team (ST) or interventional pulmonologists (IP). The IP team joined the PDT team in September 2007 and became primarily responsible for all PDT in the MICU. Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients who received PDT in the MICU by ST and IP from September 2007 to August 2010 was made. Outcomes including safety, efficacy, and procedural efficiency were compared. Results: One hundred seven patients underwent bedside PDT in the MICU during this period. Forty-three procedures (40.2%) were performed by the ST and 64 procedures (59.8%) were performed by IP. There was no statistical difference between the incidence of airway injury and infection between the two procedural groups. There were no deaths related to the performance of PDT in our series. PDT was completed within 48 h of request in 100% of IP patients and 95% of ST patients (p = 0.08). Conclusions: There were no statistical differences in PDT between the ST and IP groups when comparing complications. There was a trend towards an increased efficiency in time to PDT after consultation within the IP PDT group. Trained IP can safely and effectively perform PDT.

Object Opioid administration following major intracranial surgery is often limited by a presumed lack of need and a concern that opioids will adversely affect postoperative outcome and interfere with the neurological examination. Nevertheless, evidence is accumulating that these patients suffer moderate to severe postoperative pain and that this pain is often undertreated. The authors hypothesized that intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) would safely and more effectively treat postoperative supratentorial craniotomy pain than conventional as needed (PRN) therapy. Methods Following a standardized course of general anesthesia, adult patients who underwent elective supratentorial intracranial surgery were randomized in the neurosciences intensive care unit to receive either PRN intravenous fentanyl 25–50 μg every 30 minutes or PCA intravenous fentanyl 0.5 μg/kg every 15 minutes (maximum 4 doses/hour). The authors measured pain (self-reported scale score [0–10]), sedation (Ramsay Sedation Scale score), Glasgow Coma Scale score, fentanyl use, and major adverse events (excessive sedation, respiratory depression, pruritus, nausea, or vomiting) hourly. Results Sixty-four patients with a mean age of 48 years (range 22–77 years) were randomized to intravenous PCA (29 patients) or PRN fentanyl (35 patients) groups. There were no statistically significant demographic differences between the 2 groups. Patients receiving intravenous PCA had significantly lower pain scores than those receiving intravenous PRN fentanyl (2.53 ± 1.96 vs 3.62 ± 2.11 [p = 0.039]) and received significantly more fentanyl than the PRN group (44.1 ± 34.5 vs 23.6 ± 23.7 μg/hour [p = 0.007]). There were no differences between the 2 groups regarding the number of patients with adverse events. Conclusions Intravenous PCA more effectively treats the pain of supratentorial intracranial surgery than PRN fentanyl, and patients in the former group did not experience any untoward events related to the self-administration of opioids.

Surgery of the posterior fossa often produces intense postoperative pain. However, this pain is infrequently treated because of concern that opioid administration may mask the postoperative neurologic examination and/or produce hypercarbia. In this prospective, randomized controlled trial, we sought to determine whether IV patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) would lead to reductions in postoperative pain after neurosurgical procedures of the posterior fossa compared with conventional IV nurse-administered as-needed (PRN) therapy.Eighty patients (age range, 18-82 years) undergoing elective posterior fossa surgery were randomized to receive postoperative IV fentanyl PRN 25 to 50 μg every 30 minutes or via PCA 0.5 μg/kg/dose, with a maximal dose limit of 50 μg, and 15-minute lockout (4 doses/hour). We measured pain (Numerical Rating Scale, 0-10), analgesic use, sedation (Ramsay Sedation Scale and Glasgow Coma Scale), respiration, hemodynamics, and adverse events hourly.Sixty-five patients completed the study. Thirty-one patients received IV PCA and 34 received PRN analgesia. Patient demographics did not differ between groups. Patients in the PCA group reported less pain at rest (mean [95% confidence interval]: 3.7 [3.0, 4.4] vs 5.2 [4.5, 5.8], P = 0.003) and received more fentanyl (mean [95% confidence interval]: 54.8 [42.1, 67.6] vs 29.9 [24.2, 35.7] μg/h, P = 0.002) than those in the PRN group. There were no differences in side effects and no adverse events related to analgesic therapy.IV PCA use resulted in reduction in postoperative pain compared with PRN analgesic therapy after surgery of the posterior fossa. Larger studies will be required to determine the safety of IV PCA in this patient population.